This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com/quiz__page/1728715032057x821485153627419000 You can now also create your own quizzes on my website -- it's free.
Mathematics is a logical system. As such, it basically conforms to the elemental rules of many forms of insanity, and has no truly valid relationship to physics.
So the observable universe has the same distance in every direction, but i don't believe the answer is only the expansion. I know physics don't want to hear about tired light, but nobody knows what happens to the ray during thousands of lightyears, the wave has inteferences and gravitation influences, which can weaken the signal and if light equals mass, does anyone included all cosmic rays to the equation! I think it is arrogant to be convinced, the universe is expanding, from a subjektiv perspection, even if we take it as homogenic! ...Maybe it is expanding maybe it is static, we don't know for sure, ...it's like the extrapolation to an infinite dens single point, ...the last point we can get is a spheric ball of ray ...point, everything else is speculation!
@@JohnBerry-q1hThe game is called “meatspace”. It’s pretty good. Though, the combat part of it has some serious issues: it almost always has a non-negligible chance of permanent (non-heal able) damage to your character, and like, you aren’t allowed to make another character? There’s supposed to be a big patch “soon” where everyone gets new bodies without any of the damages they’ve gotten, even many of the players whose character died (though I think this patch might also remove combat entirely?), but like, the ETA for this patch has been “soon” for like 2000 years, so I don’t know exactly when “soon” is going to be. Also supposedly lots of players are going to get permabanned at that time as well? Or, at least, that’s a common interpretation of the announcement. And like, I guess you have to like, explicitly ask/opt-in to not get permabanned? So like, might be important to do that before your character dies. Also I guess all the other video games somehow rely on this one??? I don’t get how that works, but like… seems important.
after watching this video and the recent video by 3B1B about hologram, I just realised the reason it is called a hologram is because the 3D information of a scene is stored entirely on the 2D boundary surface, and it has less to do with having a 3D image in space like in Star Trek
Most of what physicists claim about the indestructibly of information belong in the same garbage bin as String Theory. No, you cannot look at the surface of a black hole and reconstruct the space ship that fell into it. It's String Theory level BS.
Sabine, your book ‘Lost in Math’ has clearly influenced some of today’s most innovative thinkers. I recently came across a book, “Simplicity Through Simulation: The Algorithm of Humanity” by philosopher Karl K. Dondaneau, which cites your work directly in its bibliography and seems to build upon the very foundations you’ve challenged in physics. Dondaneau’s ideas are quietly spreading through academic circles, blending quantum mechanics, depth psychology, and mathematics to craft what could be a new paradigm for science and philosophy. It’s almost as if Simplicity Through Simulation holds a mirror to your critique, offering a path forward. It feels like this book is destined to leave its mark on history, and I thought you might be interested in how your influence runs through its pages. Perhaps it’s worth a look, since Dondaneau has potentially planted your name in the annals of time, and it would be incredible to see you engage with it.
I just finished Simplicity Through Simulation and it’s genuinely a paradigm shift. Dondaneau’s quantum calculus is revolutionary, completing Carl Jung’s work by proving the existence of the multiversal psyche. This is the most groundbreaking development in human thought since Isaac Newton’s calculus. It’s not just a book-it’s a new way of understanding reality itself. If you’re ready to witness the next leap in science and philosophy, this is it.
A few months ago i went to see some doctorate students explaining their research thesis in one of my uni's research lab. One of them said that they were researching the properties of gravity at the boundary of the universe because it might give us an insight of how gravity is working _inside_ our universe. Turns out his research is probably based on the holographic principle. Its cool to see how things come about
Reality is information and computation. That "place" where all computation is happening is Present moment. Computation can only occur in Present moment. Memory(so-called Past) is stored at Present moment. Look around you : everything you see was made in Present moment and stayed in Present moment. That's called "memory" - something which is staying in Present moment. Suppose you write on water with stick, letters doesn't stay, because surface of water has no memory. But if you carve some information on ice, this information will stay until ice melts or destroyed. So: Reality is information+computation+memory
That's why I love channels like these. The simple detail that you give us the longer context at 0:55, instead of - like with all other places on the Internet - only giving a 500ms clip and that's it.
It's important to remember that the holographic principle doesn't mean the universe _is_ a hologram. That makes it seem like the 2D surface is what's "real" and the 3D volume is an "illusion" when in reality, the 3D volume is what's real and the 2D surface is just perceived information. Basically, the "holographic principle" can be better rephrased as "you can know all about a thing by looking at it from all angles". It's just a byproduct of the fact that energy radiates outward and carries with it information about where the energy came from. The "holographic principle" doesn't mean that the universe _is,_ on some level, a 3D illusion, just that anything _can_ be reconstructed if you capture all quantum fields surrounding it.
@@PietroSperonidiFenizioIn many situarions the way you approach to solve the system makes all the difference. In general if you could get all the information about a 3D body just from analysing a surface it would be easier to get.
@@MarshmallowRadiation one would generally expect both the 2D boundary and the 3D bulk to be equally real with the laws defining both resulting in the same outcomes from two different perspectives. However, there are some potential oddities, if the 2D boundary exists in a separate coordinate framework with other stuff present, then that other stuff could potentially interact with the 2D boundary, resulting in apparently non-causal interference in the 3D bulk. However, there's going to be an event horizon in this particular arrangement, so it'd be essentially impossible for those external influences to 'see' what they were doing. This would be the case for a 'black hole universe' arrangement.
Leonard Susskind made ad hominem attacks for years on anyone who proposed alternatives to String Theory. If you listen to the whole podcast, Weinstein actually praises him for his work and his writing but criticises him for his behaviour.
I think she knows the background. She mentioned it, because it was funny. When she said, that only one of them was called an ahole, I guessed it must be him, lol. I think she is fed up with all the ego shit of popular physicists.
@@itsawonderfullife4802 I audited his quicky advanced UA-cam series on GR, and his teaching style was simply superb. I crammed the whole thing like a season of Big Bang Theory, and I didn't finally lose the plot until he introduced Ricci tensors as a necessary glue in the algebra. Right about then I needed to push the pause button to really, really, _really_ sort out the yellow wires from the green wires, before I closed my eyes and snipped at random. He walked me all the way through Hamiltonians to the Einsteinian metric tensor in a single binge session, with the exception of the big speed bump concerning Ricci tensors.
@@jagatiello6900 Actually, these are all the same. Just different cases of the Atiyah-Singer Index Theorem. And yeah, the string theorists are probably going to write down sometime, a new version of it called the Holographic Index Theorem, which is kinda redundant, but a pretty awesome upgrade. @martimlopes8833 Yep, a Lei de Gauss continua a dar-lhe forte!
I've been following this idea since at least 2013, listening to Leonard Susskind's lectures at Stanford University. It always made sense to me, and I often wondered why it wasn’t discussed more widely
@jeremylindemann5117 you may not be able to remember it since it would mean remembering stuff that hasn't happened yet. Much of what you would know at the end of time hasn't technically been discovered yet. Acausality and that...
YOUR PRODUCTION TEAM support you well - Your "potted productions" are so well researched and delivered from an genuinely authoritative and educated presenter. I undersatnd everything you say - but couldn't pass that information on old physics git, UK
My husband and I love youtube but we watch wildly different creators and different subjects. I prefer old stone home restorations and renovations and he prefers politics. I asked him if he happened to watch your videos and was very pleasantly surprised when he said he did. I had no idea he was a fan too. It turns out, we both admire you and your work. 💖
Hi Sabine, keep up with your exceptionally high-quality content! Your ability to explain complex ideas in a easily understandable manner deserves Nobel itself!
It feels like a Guassian surface in electromagnetics. Though just because the sum over the Gaussian surface is zero, doesn't mean nothing of interest is going in inside that isn't represented on the surface. There could be whole EM machine inside the little balls, computer chips and all with complex interactions going on.
yes. according to the generalised Stokes theorem an N dimensional space's N-1 dimensional surface conserves information only globally, but not locally, meanwhile holography conserves information even locally. that's a huge difference. IMO the generalised Stokes theorem is one of the most beautiful (and intuitively one of the simplest) mathematical theorems. it beautifully connects local and global descriptions, parts and wholes, and it nicely unifies the Newton-Leibniz formula (fundamental theorem of calculus), Stokes's theorem (curl), Gauss' theorem (divergence) and Green's theorem. and the underlying idea is so simple and intuitive that even a preschool child could understand if properly presented.
@@drbuckley1 Dark energy is not 'dark' at all, its simply a frequency 'out of bounds' in the uncollapsed quantum wave-state that we can't observe, the matter is all there over-lapped in the same space, but different frequencies and different 'times', time is also an illusion.
@@_kopcsi_one interesting thought, to recover all info from hologram part you need to do the act of looking from different angles, what does it imply on big scale ?
I think people get the holographic principle inside out. It seems strange when you imagine the holographic surface as an infinitely or very distant boundary of the universe as a whole. Imagine it rather as a surface of interaction around every particle. The particle has no idea how distant other particles are from it, but in senses its surrounding universe through its own holographic surface. The AdS/CFT correspndence takes on new meaning in this perspective.
Is this idea testable on any other than cosmic scale? Is it even possible or is it just pure math excersise? I also like this holographic principle, but would like to know if we can prove it in any way.
It's not directly provable (at least not yet / and may never be), but it does have some experimental confirmations; namely to do with black holes. The idea is more simple than it sounds = if you take all the matter in a room and try to describe it in binary at the planck length are you able to do it? All the electrons and quarks, and this and that; their position, spin, movement, etc. And the answer is yes. And easily yes. So what if you try to make the room smaller or keep adding more and more matter to the room. Is there a point at which the information in the room becomes so great that it can no longer be written on the surface? You'd think surely yes at some point it would. But it doesn't, because before you reach that point the room as so much matter in it that it becomes a black hole. So now we have a somewhat curious link between this thought experiment, information theory, and gravity (a "force" that is notoriously non quantumisable). And so whilst there is no way to prove that this is actually what is going on, the observations we have of the size of black holes and their energy content does fit the maths that describes this relationship between size and information content / energy. This lecture by Raphael Bousso is worth watching, as I think it explains the idea much better than a lot of the pop-science infomercial type vids on the subject: ua-cam.com/video/GHgi6E1ECgo/v-deo.html Now this is of course after the fact. It's like why relativity couldn't be proven from the orbit of Mercury because that wasn't strictly a prediction when it was already known. But the fact that it has something real world that aligns to it does put it ahead of string theory, loop quantum gravity, and all that other "physics" which is entirely mathematical.
I'm not certain about this, but I think that certain distributions of matter should be impossible within a defined volume if the holographic principle holds true. The average Density within a described volume should drop as it expands, even if the total mass within that volume increases, because that total mass must be describable entirely by the boundary which grows more slowly than the volume. Alternatively, if the boundary encodes the interior in a non-linear way such that it can describe an overall density of mass/energy that remains relatively constant as the boundary grows, then the number of possible *states* that mass/energy can be in should drop instead. Many distributions of mass/energy within that volume would become energetically impossible as the volume and mass expanded, because those arrangements can no longer be accurately described by the boundary.
As far as testability goes, I think there's an idea that the holographic principle might result in a drop in positional accuracy of objects as the universe expands. Basically the plank scale would become stretched out, or something along those lines? The question is whether it might do so to the point where we could detect that discrepancy using ultra-precise detectors similar to the gravitational wave observatories we're currently using to study black holes. Basically the universe's 'pixel density' would be coarser than we should otherwise expect. That actually sounds fairly testable in principle - though how many orders of magnitude down you have to go to detect that inaccuracy might put it out of reach.
From every video I've seen about the holographic principle they always mention that it only works in anti De Sitter space, we however live in De Sitter space and so far no one has made the holographic principle work for De Sitter space. So it is untestable in principle because we don't inhabit anti De Sitter space. I'm also a bit Surprised that Sabine did not mention this in the video.
Oh, you must mean MATHEMATICS. Maths just sounds so backwoods dumb I can’t even stand it. It’s like they wanted so badly to make an acronym but couldn’t go that far. Acronyms make me acrimonious.
I had this idea for some time now. When the content of the bulk is described on its surface and all information degrees on the surface of the bulk, which is the horizon, are occupied, what happens to its content, when the horizon increases with time? The surface area increases with ~r² and the bulk volume increases with ~r³. Wouldn't that mean, that the growing bulk cannot be described on the horizon anymore as it grows? As the content of the bulk grows faster, than what can be described on its horizon, this would cause the objects inside the bulk, that cannot be described on the horizon anymore, to be "pulled" out of the horizon, causing what we perceive as a negative pressure or the dark energy. This would also mean, that in earlier phases of the universe, when the horizon was much closer, not all degrees of information on the horizon were occupied, to describe the bulk. Then, during this period of the universe, there shouldn't have been any dark energy, as the growing horizon still would have been able to fit all necessary information.
Hello Jens, what you just wrote down serves as a very rare eye opener for myself, despite having thought much in depth about these topics for a long time. True or not, regardless, you just dropped a brilliant and arguably novel line of thought. Very inspiring, thank you man! 👍
@@jeff9717 I think, it's the other way round. The boundary condition is, that the horizon grows with the velocity of light. Thus, the content of the bulk can only grow with the surface area of the horizon, not with its volume.
I can flow with this idea. There are now a few mathematical relationships that show a Black hole Universe is not totally far fetched. Nice. If I remember: Leonard was good till he became infected with string.
String theory would probably be fine if one reduced the number of free variables. I've seen as few as 5 dimensions to as many as 27 dimensions. Specific predictions/falsifiability would also help. I though gen rev required 10 dimensional manifold in 20 space but maybe I misremember.
The holographic principle is usually touted when explaining relativistic effects, but if entropy scales with surface area, as is the point of this video, then entropy-per-volume skyrockets for small volumes, at the rate predicted by Heisenberg uncertainty. So, it works equally well in explaining quantum foam, making it a wonderful starting point for a G.U.T.. It will be very interesting to see where this leads...
Does it matter that in your description the universe doesn't have a specific boundary. "The boundary of the visible universe" depends on where you are.
What does Eric "geometric unity was stolen from me and supressed by academia and I should have gotten a nobel prize for it but didn't and boo hoo hoo and I can’t reproduce my ideas with enough mathematical rigor that other capable people in relevant fields can comment on whether or not it it actually has some use beyond me just me being able to dredge it up and whine about it to everyone but not progress it enough to benefit anyone" Weinstein have to do with a holographic universe?
Aristotle has also stolen this bodyless holistic Idea: Matter can not built volumina, only 2-d flat structures, who make with others something like Voluminas." 🙂
It makes sense, for what you say it's kind of similar to the Hawkins mechanism for black holes losing mass or the Casimir effect, if you limit the wavelength of the possible fluctuations, be prepared for weird effects. An interesting hypothesis.
Ist doch immer wieder schön, wenn Menschen, die Physik richtig studiert haben, nach einigen Jahren dann auch mal auf die Ideen kommen, die ich schon hatte.
It was a discussion about the failure of string theory after 40 years of the top scientists getting all the funding to study it despite other scientists saying strong theory wasn't real
How about this -- A tiny bubble emerges from the ocean floor as it ascends it gets bigger the further it ascends the bigger it gets and its temperature changes etc. From within the bubble on a minute spec or atom stands some incredibly small Sabine If she tries to make sense of the world of the bubble then she would need information about the ocean it is rising through otherwise she might start to look for solutions within the bubble universe, such as mysterious dark matter and dark energy etc- Just a thought
“One of whom has won a Nobel Prize and the other was recently called an asshole by Eric Weinstein.” Dr. Hossenfeld/Frau Sabine & her editing team are absolutely wonderful. She covers the latest news in physics, and related fields, in a simple manner, but does not behave as though the viewer is a dunce. The editing team does a great job adding to the levity of her delivery. Bravo! Ps. I love the box plot logo. Very apt & stylish.
Not understanding physics very well and calculus, i hsve to watch this a couple of times to sort of get it. Thanks, Sabine :) Have a bright day :) ☀️💙🌷🌱
I am not a physicist but I have thought a bit about this myself. Another way of thinking about holography is that the "noise" we observe in any measurements are actually caused by prior happenings such as reflections or fluctuations of spatial events. The analogy is that the "noise" collected by a camera has a source(s) and if we compute what sources would produce the observation it isn't noise at all. I have no idea if this is correct but I've never been satisfied with methods of dealing with noise (averaging or other filtering, for example) without really understanding the sources producing the additional signal.
For me what you call noise is the fundamental uncertainty of the universe. It's that irrational 0.0...1% (Infinitely close) that exists in all analog that we attempt to round out in the digital world. For me it is what creates the subtle randomness of the universe and allows the universe to exist and evolve (be created moment by moment) :)
@@SelectCircle It's the noise part, or what we call the noise part that I was referring to. It forms part of the infinity problem, where we round out the unresolvable 0.0...1% of measurement as error or noise. I personally think that noise is the fundamental uncertainty that allows the universe to exist :)
On one hand, it's a very cool concept. On the other, I'm kind of tired of people chasing down theories that don't invite any kind of experiment to prove them. Relativity and Quantum Physics both had a wealth of experiments that could test for them. Everyone wants the next theory of that magnitude, but they're all either untestable, or when the test comes back false people just juggle the numbers to put the answer a little further out of reach.
The problem is we've reached the resolution, in terms of size not finality, of experimentation. Quarks are too small to see and the Universe too large to see. There's a point where multiple explanations will fit the data. So what do you do then?
It isn't that they may not be untestable, well some yes, but others it's a matter of technology no being there yet. Take gravity waves for example, black holes...
Quantum mechanics were discovered by an experiment that was intended to find out how light behaved. Lots of these effects are discovered in an unplanned way.
This idea doesn't necessarily sound untestable when you consider that it applies to all volumes of space. Sabine mentions the two existing measurements (black hole surface area & acceleration of universe expansion) who's values are consistent with this theory. Had someone proposed these as "tests" of this theory a priori to the measurements, would you be more excited in the results? Further, the theory does not require large volumes, although I suspect the precision needed to measure the effects will be inversely proportional to the size of the volume. IOW, the bigger the easier to detect.
@@JohnDoe-qz1ql How do you propose we experiment to uncover the macro scale (If such a concept has meaning) of the Universe, even considering advancements in technology?
Just browsed through a youtube channel with extremely poor explanations of Physics concepts, making me frustrated. This video by Sabine made me relaxed. I am calm now, thank you Sabine.
Yup, the day anything at all from quantum physics can be used for anything real people will already be so tired of getting fooled over and over that they don't care anymore. So far we're very very far from even getting close to using "quantum physics science" for anything other than internal discussions for people that doesn't like talking about reality or learning new things.
Why? It's kinda the opposite, the computer is what happens to remind us of the universe. "Simulations" might by nature work how the universe works, not the other way around. So the universe would not be a simulation, but a simulation would essentially be a representation of how reality operates.
@@jed1nat That’s why the bible says things like : “Life is a TEST” “God LAUGHS at wicked” These type of verses foreshadowed the simulation theory It’s almost like he was planning to simulate human beings attempting to become Gods or he might already be doing that.
Im delighted that I understood the concept of losing my keys (inside my pocket). I equate it to the real-life experience of losing my head-mounted torch (still sitting securely upon my head). As for the rest of the video, well, I guess it was above my head.
Interesting. This somehow reminds me of something that I observed not too long ago. It was at night and I only had light from my turned on computer screen. The light reflected white of the surface of my door when looking down the surface from the side and towards the computer screen. But if I looked carefully with the naked eye from a certain angle, it looked like a shadow was reflecting like light into the air, but not exactly reflecting of the door, but of the corner of a 1 meter wide white wall behind the door (the door being 2× 3rds in width of that). Kind of dificult to explain. But it's like it only showed up where the light reflection was brightest like a contrast. I noticed the black shadowy "reflection" in the corner of my eye, when I walked into the room at some point. And it looked like it was moving, so gave me a bit of a shock haha (the "shadow" moved according to my viewing angle as I walked past the wall). So of course I had to check it out and figure out what was sort of going on. This phenomena kind of reminds of standing in the rain while looking at a rainbow, but also seeing the rainbow right in front of you at the same time, because the angle and reflection is just right. Kind of weird seeing something that appears like it's huge and far away and yet it's right in front of you at the same time but significantly smaller. It did at first appear to me like it dissapeared behind buildings and trees as they usually do, but when I noticed more of it with the naked eye, it was suddenly continuing in front of those buildings and trees and down right in front of me instead. So it was both here and there at the same time. And btw rainbows have no ends. They continue into a potential circle. It's easier to discover while standing in the middle of a garden springler in bright and clear daylight 😄
I don't go for this "at the surface" stuff, but here me out: glass with a holographic image can be broken into smaller pieces, and each still contains "the full image." Magnets seem to do the exact same thing! Break a bar magnet in half, and each is still a north/south bar magnet. The implication is some interferance between physical objects in our 3D space with something in a higher dimension, or, that our world feels 3D, but is really "on the surface" of other objects we can't see. I'll go on to say that light has limits in our space, but that information travels faster than light at a higher dimension (thus, a galaxy can act just like the surface of that cup of coffee, or, as a (non-compressable?) liquid.
I don't think "smaller pieces of a magnet are still whole magnets" implies "the (3D) universe is on the boundary of a (4D) object" any more (or less) than "smaller pieces of a holographic image are still the image" implies it-i.e., "this is just a property of this one particular thing, which is explainable without invoking 4D object surfaces" seems to me a pretty good explanation too. But I love 4D stuff, so I'm open to being convinced! What explanatory power does this hypothesis give us, or what calculations / explanations are more simple or elegant in this framework? 🤔
So the Holographic Principle is probably just a computational coincidence. In Vector Calculus, it's often possible to calculate the integral of a function within a volume as the integral of the gradient of that function along the surface area of that volume.
...MOSTLY LIKELY PHYSICIANS ARE DEEPLY TURNED INSIDE AND STARTED ACTING LIKE SOME KIND OF MASONS AND STUFF AND JUST LOSING LINK WITH REALITY BY BECOMING TOO SOCIAL ........PARADOX OF WARHAMMER40K ....LIKE TO BECOME A SOLID PART OF COMMUNITY,YOUVE GOT TO KNOW *_all the stuff at once_* .......AND ETC ETC........TO THE POINT WHEN .....ONE'S LIFE NOT ENOUGH TO CATCH UP................ ...U know WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.......RIGHT???....SO THAT IS REAL PROBLEM....
OK, so, I've been thinking about this for a while now. I don't understand the math, but imagine this: If the universe was a simulation, then the "programmer" could input the measurements and laws of physics any way he/she/it/they wanted to. We've done this in our own simulations. Suppose now that this simulation was *displayed* as a hologram. The laws of physics inside the hologram would behave in a way that was "decided" by the programmer. However, the laws of physics in the universe in which the hologram was displayed would still have an impact; the hologram *itself* would have to behave in a way that reflected the laws of the outer/container universe. Suppose the programmer's laws followed Relativity, but the rules of the "container" universe impacted the hologram in ways that we understand as Quantum Mechanics. Also, if it were a simulation, then it would probably be a machine that is running the program. Sometimes we, in video games, use programming tricks and shortcuts to save processor cycles. We do things like "don't render things that the player isn't currently looking at." So maybe the "probabilities" we see in particle behavior comes from the program "cheating" on processor cycles. It doesn't render the particle until someone actually *looks* at it (collapsing the wave function). So we have advanced to the point where we've begun to decode the program/hologram itself. It would also generate all kinds of philosophical questions like, "Did the programmer foresee/intend this?" Or "Is this why the simulation is still running? Because someone wants to see just how far we can go with it?" Since I don't understand the math, I can't go into whether or not this is feasible. I approached it more from a philosophical angle ("Why would a universe seem to have two sets of "laws" that don't seem to jibe with each other?" "Why would a particle be a bundle of probabilities until someone observes it?" etc.) Those of you who understand the math, please tear into it, laugh at me, call me names, and generally disprove this theory so that I can go back to thinking about the universe as *real,* please. Thank you.
Okay, ich versuche es kurz zu fassen: es ist mehr oder weniger eine Konsequenz mathematischer Überlegungen (Entropie schwarzer Löcher, Bekenstein, ads/cft, Symmetrie,dualität, Felder und Operatoren Informationsgeometrie), die zu dieser Idee überhaupt geführt haben. Wenn man schon Videos dafür verschwendet, Kollegen schlecht zu reden ist die Begegnung mit dieser großartigen, fundierten Idee laienhaft!!
But if every particle has slightly different observable cone, then that means that every particle is an hologram of it's own bounding box? It's sounds complicated.
I think "dark energy" is a dimension beyond our perception. That dimension is expanding and carrying our observable dimensions along with it. Dark energy is a dimension, not a particle or a force.
I've been telling you, hyperspace and subspace. My theory is that "universe" was really the collapse of a hyper-spatial star into a hyper-spatial black hole, and that what happens in black holes is the collapse of one of the axis of space heading towards the black hole in such a way that matter caught within it interacts (generally) only within this a new spacetime that exists perpendicular to the vector heading towards the singularity. This creates our holographic universe. I believe that while an observer as it drops into a black hole ceases to experience time, that particles that made up the observer still interact with each other and become stretched pin/cone like probability distributions stretched along the decayed axis, never really collapsing into a single super-dense singularity but as a subspace of higher energy density, a higher state of entropy if you will, kept contained by its own spacetime pressure versus that of the spacetime outside. The decay of an axis is why entropy in a black hole only seems to depend on its surface, because the interactions within a black hole are defined by one less axis of space. Another way to think of it is that the axis of space pointing towards the singularity decays into a new time dimension, although I don't think that's quite right either. I also think that a black hole can become a while hole if the spacetime surrounding it changes drastically. This also means that black holes in our universe are collapsing into their own subspace, and on its surface, even further collapses, which due to their density probably interact with the space outside of them as gravity/spacetime shifts, specially when the breaking point, there no longer being an axis of space that can be collapsed into further subspace, occurs. The regions where jets can escape from black holes probably attract and are seen within their subspace with the greatest space time deformations (high density of gargantuan time defying sub-spatial black holes if you were an observer in this new spacetime). These sub-spatial blackholes would also be the one we would consider as being closer to the "center" of a singularity. Dark energy might then be due to horizon effects arising from the hyper-spherical nature of our nature, not noticeable directly because to us spacetime would seem to go straight, and dark matter might be explored as hyper-spatial/sub-spatial interactions that are not unlike gravity waves and could be thought off as streams and currents of gravity arising from these sub-spatial black-holes that a completely spherical model could not illustrate. You can have super-symmetry, but having it means overcoming a hyper-spatial event horizon.
Why don't you go ahead and write an paper about your hypothesis? These days, the pages of physics journals are filled with such fantasies. But don't forget to include a few complicated-looking formulas to make it look scientific! You could go on to explain that your ideas work perfectly well in a two-dimensional space-time (unfortunately not in a four-dimensional one, but who cares). Good luck!
The holographic principle cannot be valid in a general sense with a linear proportionality to surface area as it is fundamentally self contradictory. Any volume with a certain surface area can be subsectioned into smaller volumes with their own surface areas until those smaller surface areas add up to an area greater than the overall surface area. If information is proportional to surface area that would mean that such a construction would have more information in its volume than on its surface, which contradicts the original principal from which it was derived.
ChatGPT's opinion - Sabine’s approach is refreshing because she makes complex ideas accessible without patronizing her audience, which contrasts sharply with the academic arrogance that can sometimes seep into science communication. Instead of focusing on personal accolades or prestige, she sticks to the fundamental, evidence-based approach, which is often missing in the more ego-driven parts of the scientific community. It seems like the pursuit of recognition sometimes overshadows the real goal: understanding how the universe works. Sabine's ability to keep it grounded and engage people on the core principles really makes her stand out.
this video should explain why Weinstein called Lenny a bad word, it's not clear to me, viewers should not have to do more research to figure it out, we need a follow up, please
I'm not sure if I've got it right but I believe this would mean that light is not a property of space-time but instead that space-time is a property of light. To me that's the only explanation when light is constant and space-time is variable; it also explains why matter can be in two places at once at the quantum level.
@@Thomas-gk42 The old "broken clock" argument? He, his brother, and frankly Brian are sour-grape losers. I have a bit more respect for Brian, but really, Prager U.?
When i was a young child i came up with the idea that the universe isn't real, that things only pop into existence when I looked at them. I also believed that the static we sometimes see was actually the wind and only i understood that humans can see the wind. It took decades for physicists to catch up with me, my time has come at last!
So we have reached the compression limit of the universe so any additional complexity causes the surface area of the universe to expand(eg accelerating expansion/dark energy).
I'm not a physicist but i play video games for fun and these ideas was just for fun. If you turn the universe into a video game, my theory was; Dark energy is just a rule that has to exist in order for everything else to exist, like in an experiment with anything, something is often added to allow it to happen. time inside and outside of the universe but its completely different, inside it changes depending on the speed of objects(particles) and it also slows in intense areas, like around black holes, because if it didn't it would waste computational resources or cause a crash. Quantum entanglement is how everything knows its position in the world relative to each other, that only has a state when observed to save resources.
1:40 "...but also how the nuts move around if you shake the box." I don't know if this was written by someone from your team or yourself, but it is pure gold. 😁
@@williamschlosser please make the bare minimum effort before engaging on a discussion about physics. Dark energy is the OBSEVATION that the universe is EXPANDING in all directions as we see when we look at GALAXIES or we measure the redshift in COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION. Source: I'm an actual cosmologist researcher. Also the very first paragraph in wikipedia.
@marcag9810 our model did not fit the observation, so we added crap to the model so it would fit the observation,.. its called physics on the go.. and hes little basis in reality
On one hand, I'm amazed there are 1.5M science nerds who have subscribed to this (wonderfully informative) channel. On the other hand, I wonder why there aren't several million more.
Very interesting... a proposal that Sabine DOESN'T instantly tear down is definitely one to watch out for developments :P hope this leads to something!
So this has me thinking about the possibility that if the cosmological constant is indeed a constant could the universe just be sitting in its own gravity well of an infinite space itself? Couldn't that explain the acceleration?
"Called an asshole by Eric Weinstein?" Hahaha! Of all the rough-edged, egotistic, fraudulent blowhards to be called "asshole" by, EW has got to be the best! I'd love for Weinstein to call me "asshole." Even better would be for him to call me a "fraud." The pot calls the kettle "black." Hilarious.
Thanks Sabine. I think that was well presented :) > We are still chasing the illusive shadows on the wall though. Doesn't mean that shadows are not a thing. We can gain some information about what may have formed the shadow by studying it, as long as we remember that the shadow isn't the actual object that we are looking for. Projected universe has merit in describing shadows, but beyond that there are far more simple explanations for black hole, universe and other event horizons. I find boundaries and event horizons the masters of illusion, casting shadows that don't truly exist in the way that we expect or want. . I have to ask, is the expansion speeding up or is the shadow on the wall speeding up ;) > I am not a physicist or cosmologist, just a dumb Rs who has wasted too much of his life studying books.
@@SabineHossenfelder Wouldn't it be finite if it was some kind of closed hypersurface like a hypersphere or hyperdonut (I am hoping for a Hyperbrezel)? And figuring out whether it is such a thing doesn't sound impossible. If it isn't though, I agree, we could never say whether it is infinite or ends somewhere or is just a hypersurface subtle enough that we can't tell.
It was never known (and never will be) if it's infinite. We only know that it's large, and that the visibility boundary is due to speed of light constraints, so having a visible edge of the universe (the background radiation) doesn't implies that there's actually any edge. From that you can make a leap of logic and assume that the universe is infinite, but nobody ever said that.
I am glad you addressed this. planck scale transients may have an average ~0, but the instantanious values actually matter and carry a cumulative effect. The only problem is they are a side effect not the cause. persistent space-time stretches apart and transient space-time forms to fill the gaps for transient pathways of quantum waves which are 2-d.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com/quiz__page/1728715032057x821485153627419000
You can now also create your own quizzes on my website -- it's free.
"Podcasts happen in a different dimension" "One can write papers about it" -- The "wrong answer" possibilities make these quizzes an enjoyment.🖖
Mathematics is a logical system. As such, it basically conforms to the elemental rules of many forms of insanity, and has no truly valid relationship to physics.
Best quiz ever I nailed it😎
So the observable universe has the same distance in every direction, but i don't believe the answer is only the expansion. I know physics don't want to hear about tired light, but nobody knows what happens to the ray during thousands of lightyears, the wave has inteferences and gravitation influences, which can weaken the signal and if light equals mass, does anyone included all cosmic rays to the equation! I think it is arrogant to be convinced, the universe is expanding, from a subjektiv perspection, even if we take it as homogenic! ...Maybe it is expanding maybe it is static, we don't know for sure, ...it's like the extrapolation to an infinite dens single point, ...the last point we can get is a spheric ball of ray ...point, everything else is speculation!
Dark energy is negative mass
This episode is so packed with information I was worried it might collapse on itself.
😂
IDK, Sabine barely scratched the surface area🌚
Don't worry , on the surface all that information is highly compressible.
Insufficient dark matter to increase the gravitational constant...
I only understand it at surface level, but apparently that’s good enough!
Hey i mean if the universe is holographic that increases it's value by like 800%, good day for collectors
The universe is an NFT?
Does a video game come with it?
@@JohnBerry-q1hThe game is called “meatspace”. It’s pretty good. Though, the combat part of it has some serious issues: it almost always has a non-negligible chance of permanent (non-heal able) damage to your character, and like, you aren’t allowed to make another character?
There’s supposed to be a big patch “soon” where everyone gets new bodies without any of the damages they’ve gotten, even many of the players whose character died (though I think this patch might also remove combat entirely?),
but like, the ETA for this patch has been “soon” for like 2000 years, so I don’t know exactly when “soon” is going to be.
Also supposedly lots of players are going to get permabanned at that time as well? Or, at least, that’s a common interpretation of the announcement. And like, I guess you have to like, explicitly ask/opt-in to not get permabanned? So like, might be important to do that before your character dies.
Also I guess all the other video games somehow rely on this one??? I don’t get how that works, but like…
seems important.
Like a cracker jack? Baseball card? Pokémon?
@@aaronjennings8385 was thinking of Pokemon yeah haha
The value will crater because they're _all_ holographic. It's not special anymore.
after watching this video and the recent video by 3B1B about hologram, I just realised the reason it is called a hologram is because the 3D information of a scene is stored entirely on the 2D boundary surface, and it has less to do with having a 3D image in space like in Star Trek
@@elinope4745 bro what?
@@elinope4745 He's not the only one.
@koktszfung So, the Earth is flat and they are right? 😱
We just looking into a hologram, from within the hologram.
@@elinope4745 "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
Most of what physicists claim about the indestructibly of information belong in the same garbage bin as String Theory. No, you cannot look at the surface of a black hole and reconstruct the space ship that fell into it. It's String Theory level BS.
5:08 better analogy: it's like losing your car keys only to find that you never learned how to drive, you have no car, and cars actually don't exist
brilliant :D
Sabine, your book ‘Lost in Math’ has clearly influenced some of today’s most innovative thinkers. I recently came across a book, “Simplicity Through Simulation: The Algorithm of Humanity” by philosopher Karl K. Dondaneau, which cites your work directly in its bibliography and seems to build upon the very foundations you’ve challenged in physics. Dondaneau’s ideas are quietly spreading through academic circles, blending quantum mechanics, depth psychology, and mathematics to craft what could be a new paradigm for science and philosophy. It’s almost as if Simplicity Through Simulation holds a mirror to your critique, offering a path forward. It feels like this book is destined to leave its mark on history, and I thought you might be interested in how your influence runs through its pages. Perhaps it’s worth a look, since Dondaneau has potentially planted your name in the annals of time, and it would be incredible to see you engage with it.
That book is trippy as all hell…. 😮
I just finished Simplicity Through Simulation and it’s genuinely a paradigm shift. Dondaneau’s quantum calculus is revolutionary, completing Carl Jung’s work by proving the existence of the multiversal psyche. This is the most groundbreaking development in human thought since Isaac Newton’s calculus. It’s not just a book-it’s a new way of understanding reality itself. If you’re ready to witness the next leap in science and philosophy, this is it.
A few months ago i went to see some doctorate students explaining their research thesis in one of my uni's research lab. One of them said that they were researching the properties of gravity at the boundary of the universe because it might give us an insight of how gravity is working _inside_ our universe. Turns out his research is probably based on the holographic principle. Its cool to see how things come about
So, they found a boundary?
@@Bobbel888 and they went there to study it?
Gravity is dead, all interactions are a resultant of hidden variables of Electromagnetics and the Ether-- long live gravity
What boundary?
@@technoweasel8937 so what's holding me to the ground then ?
Thanks!
I understood nothing and I loved it.
I agree...especially about how "the nuts move around in the box when you shake it"...sounds like politics!
Reality is information and computation. That "place" where all computation is happening is Present moment.
Computation can only occur in Present moment.
Memory(so-called Past) is stored at Present moment. Look around you : everything you see was made in Present moment and stayed in Present moment. That's called "memory" - something which is staying in Present moment.
Suppose you write on water with stick, letters doesn't stay, because surface of water has no memory. But if you carve some information on ice, this information will stay until ice melts or destroyed.
So:
Reality is information+computation+memory
I understood one guy thinks another guy is an asshole. That’s something I can identify with.
That's me!
That's why I love channels like these. The simple detail that you give us the longer context at 0:55, instead of - like with all other places on the Internet - only giving a 500ms clip and that's it.
Still need more context, to make a though.
It's important to remember that the holographic principle doesn't mean the universe _is_ a hologram. That makes it seem like the 2D surface is what's "real" and the 3D volume is an "illusion" when in reality, the 3D volume is what's real and the 2D surface is just perceived information. Basically, the "holographic principle" can be better rephrased as "you can know all about a thing by looking at it from all angles". It's just a byproduct of the fact that energy radiates outward and carries with it information about where the energy came from. The "holographic principle" doesn't mean that the universe _is,_ on some level, a 3D illusion, just that anything _can_ be reconstructed if you capture all quantum fields surrounding it.
Thank you that filled the gap @@Raven-l8w
if the math is the same, does it matter how you interpret it? (real question)
Thank you!
@@PietroSperonidiFenizioIn many situarions the way you approach to solve the system makes all the difference. In general if you could get all the information about a 3D body just from analysing a surface it would be easier to get.
@@MarshmallowRadiation one would generally expect both the 2D boundary and the 3D bulk to be equally real with the laws defining both resulting in the same outcomes from two different perspectives.
However, there are some potential oddities, if the 2D boundary exists in a separate coordinate framework with other stuff present, then that other stuff could potentially interact with the 2D boundary, resulting in apparently non-causal interference in the 3D bulk. However, there's going to be an event horizon in this particular arrangement, so it'd be essentially impossible for those external influences to 'see' what they were doing.
This would be the case for a 'black hole universe' arrangement.
Leonard Susskind made ad hominem attacks for years on anyone who proposed alternatives to String Theory. If you listen to the whole podcast, Weinstein actually praises him for his work and his writing but criticises him for his behaviour.
I think she knows the background. She mentioned it, because it was funny. When she said, that only one of them was called an ahole, I guessed it must be him, lol. I think she is fed up with all the ego shit of popular physicists.
Pretty based, desu
Leonard Susskind is a great teacher. Better even than the late Richard Feynman, IMHO. So many people have learned so much from him.
When your work speaks for itself don't interrupt.
@@itsawonderfullife4802 I audited his quicky advanced UA-cam series on GR, and his teaching style was simply superb. I crammed the whole thing like a season of Big Bang Theory, and I didn't finally lose the plot until he introduced Ricci tensors as a necessary glue in the algebra.
Right about then I needed to push the pause button to really, really, _really_ sort out the yellow wires from the green wires, before I closed my eyes and snipped at random.
He walked me all the way through Hamiltonians to the Einsteinian metric tensor in a single binge session, with the exception of the big speed bump concerning Ricci tensors.
So, Stoke's Theorem all over again?
My first thought was the divergence theorem
@@tylwhite Indeed, mine was Cauchy's integral formula
@@jagatiello6900 Actually, these are all the same. Just different cases of the Atiyah-Singer Index Theorem. And yeah, the string theorists are probably going to write down sometime, a new version of it called the Holographic Index Theorem, which is kinda redundant, but a pretty awesome upgrade.
@martimlopes8833 Yep, a Lei de Gauss continua a dar-lhe forte!
No, they mean all information, not a little bit.
@@samgragas8467 But but! Information is made up of little bits!
I've been following this idea since at least 2013, listening to Leonard Susskind's lectures at Stanford University. It always made sense to me, and I often wondered why it wasn’t discussed more widely
" Help me, Obi-wan Kenobi, you're my only hope."
He can't hear you, he's standing at bar! 🤭
You kinda look like queen elizabeth
That's exactly what I thought
So all we need to do is remove the restraining bolt at the boundary and we'll get the full message that the universe holds.
@jeremylindemann5117 you may not be able to remember it since it would mean remembering stuff that hasn't happened yet. Much of what you would know at the end of time hasn't technically been discovered yet. Acausality and that...
YOUR PRODUCTION TEAM support you well - Your "potted productions" are so well researched and delivered from an genuinely authoritative and educated presenter.
I undersatnd everything you say - but couldn't pass that information on old physics git, UK
My husband and I love youtube but we watch wildly different creators and different subjects. I prefer old stone home restorations and renovations and he prefers politics. I asked him if he happened to watch your videos and was very pleasantly surprised when he said he did. I had no idea he was a fan too. It turns out, we both admire you and your work. 💖
sabine must be really good at the politics of home renovations
Hi Sabine, keep up with your exceptionally high-quality content! Your ability to explain complex ideas in a easily understandable manner deserves Nobel itself!
It feels like a Guassian surface in electromagnetics. Though just because the sum over the Gaussian surface is zero, doesn't mean nothing of interest is going in inside that isn't represented on the surface. There could be whole EM machine inside the little balls, computer chips and all with complex interactions going on.
It doesn't guarantee a unique solution
Maybe dark energy is an extra dimension that is beyond our standard four?
yes. according to the generalised Stokes theorem an N dimensional space's N-1 dimensional surface conserves information only globally, but not locally, meanwhile holography conserves information even locally. that's a huge difference.
IMO the generalised Stokes theorem is one of the most beautiful (and intuitively one of the simplest) mathematical theorems. it beautifully connects local and global descriptions, parts and wholes, and it nicely unifies the Newton-Leibniz formula (fundamental theorem of calculus), Stokes's theorem (curl), Gauss' theorem (divergence) and Green's theorem. and the underlying idea is so simple and intuitive that even a preschool child could understand if properly presented.
@@drbuckley1 Dark energy is not 'dark' at all, its simply a frequency 'out of bounds' in the uncollapsed quantum wave-state that we can't observe, the matter is all there over-lapped in the same space, but different frequencies and different 'times', time is also an illusion.
@@_kopcsi_one interesting thought, to recover all info from hologram part you need to do the act of looking from different angles, what does it imply on big scale ?
I think people get the holographic principle inside out. It seems strange when you imagine the holographic surface as an infinitely or very distant boundary of the universe as a whole. Imagine it rather as a surface of interaction around every particle. The particle has no idea how distant other particles are from it, but in senses its surrounding universe through its own holographic surface. The AdS/CFT correspndence takes on new meaning in this perspective.
Is this idea testable on any other than cosmic scale? Is it even possible or is it just pure math excersise? I also like this holographic principle, but would like to know if we can prove it in any way.
There have been claims that it can be tested with interferometers www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269321006031
It's not directly provable (at least not yet / and may never be), but it does have some experimental confirmations; namely to do with black holes. The idea is more simple than it sounds = if you take all the matter in a room and try to describe it in binary at the planck length are you able to do it? All the electrons and quarks, and this and that; their position, spin, movement, etc. And the answer is yes. And easily yes. So what if you try to make the room smaller or keep adding more and more matter to the room. Is there a point at which the information in the room becomes so great that it can no longer be written on the surface?
You'd think surely yes at some point it would. But it doesn't, because before you reach that point the room as so much matter in it that it becomes a black hole. So now we have a somewhat curious link between this thought experiment, information theory, and gravity (a "force" that is notoriously non quantumisable). And so whilst there is no way to prove that this is actually what is going on, the observations we have of the size of black holes and their energy content does fit the maths that describes this relationship between size and information content / energy.
This lecture by Raphael Bousso is worth watching, as I think it explains the idea much better than a lot of the pop-science infomercial type vids on the subject: ua-cam.com/video/GHgi6E1ECgo/v-deo.html
Now this is of course after the fact. It's like why relativity couldn't be proven from the orbit of Mercury because that wasn't strictly a prediction when it was already known. But the fact that it has something real world that aligns to it does put it ahead of string theory, loop quantum gravity, and all that other "physics" which is entirely mathematical.
I'm not certain about this, but I think that certain distributions of matter should be impossible within a defined volume if the holographic principle holds true. The average Density within a described volume should drop as it expands, even if the total mass within that volume increases, because that total mass must be describable entirely by the boundary which grows more slowly than the volume.
Alternatively, if the boundary encodes the interior in a non-linear way such that it can describe an overall density of mass/energy that remains relatively constant as the boundary grows, then the number of possible *states* that mass/energy can be in should drop instead. Many distributions of mass/energy within that volume would become energetically impossible as the volume and mass expanded, because those arrangements can no longer be accurately described by the boundary.
As far as testability goes, I think there's an idea that the holographic principle might result in a drop in positional accuracy of objects as the universe expands. Basically the plank scale would become stretched out, or something along those lines? The question is whether it might do so to the point where we could detect that discrepancy using ultra-precise detectors similar to the gravitational wave observatories we're currently using to study black holes. Basically the universe's 'pixel density' would be coarser than we should otherwise expect. That actually sounds fairly testable in principle - though how many orders of magnitude down you have to go to detect that inaccuracy might put it out of reach.
From every video I've seen about the holographic principle they always mention that it only works in anti De Sitter space, we however live in De Sitter space and so far no one has made the holographic principle work for De Sitter space. So it is untestable in principle because we don't inhabit anti De Sitter space. I'm also a bit Surprised that Sabine did not mention this in the video.
Great to see your back too.
Oh the maths. Yes, the maths
Oh, you must mean MATHEMATICS. Maths just sounds so backwoods dumb I can’t even stand it. It’s like they wanted so badly to make an acronym but couldn’t go that far. Acronyms make me acrimonious.
The only people who care how you feel is you,and maybe your Mom.
Not Mother,but Mom.
Math in theory is great, but what are we going to do if the math ain't mathing?
@@spiralsun1 it's not an acronym, and you've probably just angered the whole U.K. but
@@spiralsun1 Not an American making accusations about language sounding dumb lol.
Ya'll feeling them aloominum veeheecles?
I love everything you do. Thanks for being at the surface!
I had this idea for some time now. When the content of the bulk is described on its surface and all information degrees on the surface of the bulk, which is the horizon, are occupied, what happens to its content, when the horizon increases with time? The surface area increases with ~r² and the bulk volume increases with ~r³. Wouldn't that mean, that the growing bulk cannot be described on the horizon anymore as it grows? As the content of the bulk grows faster, than what can be described on its horizon, this would cause the objects inside the bulk, that cannot be described on the horizon anymore, to be "pulled" out of the horizon, causing what we perceive as a negative pressure or the dark energy.
This would also mean, that in earlier phases of the universe, when the horizon was much closer, not all degrees of information on the horizon were occupied, to describe the bulk. Then, during this period of the universe, there shouldn't have been any dark energy, as the growing horizon still would have been able to fit all necessary information.
Hello Jens,
what you just wrote down serves as a very rare eye opener for myself, despite having thought much in depth about these topics for a long time. True or not, regardless, you just dropped a brilliant and arguably novel line of thought. Very inspiring, thank you man!
👍
The surface area of the horizon increases by the volume of its interior, that is the holographic principle in a nutshell.
@@jeff9717 Well, sort of. But this is not just about the basics in a nutshell, rather about, say, the nut itself. 🤓🌰
@@jeff9717 I think, it's the other way round. The boundary condition is, that the horizon grows with the velocity of light. Thus, the content of the bulk can only grow with the surface area of the horizon, not with its volume.
@@jensstolpmann7275 ^This.
Always interresting...Thank you.
I can flow with this idea. There are now a few mathematical relationships that show a Black hole Universe is not totally far fetched. Nice. If I remember: Leonard was good till he became infected with string.
what does [phone] [atom] mean?
String theory would probably be fine if one reduced the number of free variables. I've seen as few as 5 dimensions to as many as 27 dimensions. Specific predictions/falsifiability would also help. I though gen rev required 10 dimensional manifold in 20 space but maybe I misremember.
The holographic principle is usually touted when explaining relativistic effects, but if entropy scales with surface area, as is the point of this video, then entropy-per-volume skyrockets for small volumes, at the rate predicted by Heisenberg uncertainty. So, it works equally well in explaining quantum foam, making it a wonderful starting point for a G.U.T.. It will be very interesting to see where this leads...
Does it matter that in your description the universe doesn't have a specific boundary.
"The boundary of the visible universe" depends on where you are.
Good observation. It's all relative, so valid from any location in space-time.
I love the post video quiz idea.
What does Eric "geometric unity was stolen from me and supressed by academia and I should have gotten a nobel prize for it but didn't and boo hoo hoo and I can’t reproduce my ideas with enough mathematical rigor that other capable people in relevant fields can comment on whether or not it it actually has some use beyond me just me being able to dredge it up and whine about it to everyone but not progress it enough to benefit anyone" Weinstein have to do with a holographic universe?
Reminder: stealing moves the original. Unless you have a gift for mind control you cannot steal ideas.
Bro, I actually like Eric, but this is so well articulated 😂 take my upvote
And true
Aristotle has also stolen this bodyless holistic Idea: Matter can not built volumina, only 2-d flat structures, who make with others something like Voluminas." 🙂
@@crackasaurus_rox9740 Cheers! He can be entertaining when he isn't taking himself too seriously.
It makes sense, for what you say it's kind of similar to the Hawkins mechanism for black holes losing mass or the Casimir effect, if you limit the wavelength of the possible fluctuations, be prepared for weird effects. An interesting hypothesis.
Fascinating! Thanks, Sabine! 😊
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Ist doch immer wieder schön, wenn Menschen, die Physik richtig studiert haben, nach einigen Jahren dann auch mal auf die Ideen kommen, die ich schon hatte.
Ya, richtig!
1:07 whats the context of this?
Accuses susskind of playing a game and destroying colleagues reputations for daring to come up with competitor
It was a discussion about the failure of string theory after 40 years of the top scientists getting all the funding to study it despite other scientists saying strong theory wasn't real
You can watch it in a modern wisdom podcast episode. I think it was actually good(don't remember which one excactly but of the popular ones)
How about this -- A tiny bubble emerges from the ocean floor as it ascends it gets bigger the further it ascends the bigger it gets and its temperature changes etc. From within the bubble on a minute spec or atom stands some incredibly small Sabine If she tries to make sense of the world of the bubble then she would need information about the ocean it is rising through otherwise she might start to look for solutions within the bubble universe, such as mysterious dark matter and dark energy etc-
Just a thought
“One of whom has won a Nobel Prize and the other was recently called an asshole by Eric Weinstein.”
Dr. Hossenfeld/Frau Sabine & her editing team are absolutely wonderful.
She covers the latest news in physics, and related fields, in a simple manner, but does not behave as though the viewer is a dunce.
The editing team does a great job adding to the levity of her delivery.
Bravo!
Ps. I love the box plot logo. Very apt & stylish.
Yes!
Not understanding physics very well and calculus, i hsve to watch this a couple of times to sort of get it.
Thanks, Sabine :) Have a bright day :) ☀️💙🌷🌱
Are there any new predictions made by the holographic principle?
Has it ever made any predictions?
I am not a physicist but I have thought a bit about this myself. Another way of thinking about holography is that the "noise" we observe in any measurements are actually caused by prior happenings such as reflections or fluctuations of spatial events. The analogy is that the "noise" collected by a camera has a source(s) and if we compute what sources would produce the observation it isn't noise at all. I have no idea if this is correct but I've never been satisfied with methods of dealing with noise (averaging or other filtering, for example) without really understanding the sources producing the additional signal.
For me what you call noise is the fundamental uncertainty of the universe. It's that irrational 0.0...1% (Infinitely close) that exists in all analog that we attempt to round out in the digital world. For me it is what creates the subtle randomness of the universe and allows the universe to exist and evolve (be created moment by moment) :)
That's actually kinda interesting ... but I can't explain why.
@@SelectCircle "but I can't explain why." It's a difficult concept because it is irrational. It's a little like calculating the exact value of PI.
@@axle.student Holography is quite rational. His idea that "noise" is part of the singularity is intriguing.
@@SelectCircle It's the noise part, or what we call the noise part that I was referring to.
It forms part of the infinity problem, where we round out the unresolvable 0.0...1% of measurement as error or noise. I personally think that noise is the fundamental uncertainty that allows the universe to exist :)
On one hand, it's a very cool concept. On the other, I'm kind of tired of people chasing down theories that don't invite any kind of experiment to prove them. Relativity and Quantum Physics both had a wealth of experiments that could test for them. Everyone wants the next theory of that magnitude, but they're all either untestable, or when the test comes back false people just juggle the numbers to put the answer a little further out of reach.
The problem is we've reached the resolution, in terms of size not finality, of experimentation. Quarks are too small to see and the Universe too large to see. There's a point where multiple explanations will fit the data. So what do you do then?
It isn't that they may not be untestable, well some yes, but others it's a matter of technology no being there yet. Take gravity waves for example, black holes...
Quantum mechanics were discovered by an experiment that was intended to find out how light behaved. Lots of these effects are discovered in an unplanned way.
This idea doesn't necessarily sound untestable when you consider that it applies to all volumes of space. Sabine mentions the two existing measurements (black hole surface area & acceleration of universe expansion) who's values are consistent with this theory. Had someone proposed these as "tests" of this theory a priori to the measurements, would you be more excited in the results? Further, the theory does not require large volumes, although I suspect the precision needed to measure the effects will be inversely proportional to the size of the volume. IOW, the bigger the easier to detect.
@@JohnDoe-qz1ql How do you propose we experiment to uncover the macro scale (If such a concept has meaning) of the Universe, even considering advancements in technology?
Just browsed through a youtube channel with extremely poor explanations of Physics concepts, making me frustrated. This video by Sabine made me relaxed. I am calm now, thank you Sabine.
There's nothing wrong with this idea, we just need to make up ways that fits exactly to what we want it to be. Or something.
Pretty much the quantum phisucs works.
Yup, the day anything at all from quantum physics can be used for anything real people will already be so tired of getting fooled over and over that they don't care anymore.
So far we're very very far from even getting close to using "quantum physics science" for anything other than internal discussions for people that doesn't like talking about reality or learning new things.
A physicist with great humor you Sabine are a new discovery of mine also lol thanks great info
I don't really like the idea of reality being highly compressible as it does reminds me of our own computer.
You'll be 2D encodable and you'll like it.
As a 1 dimensional being I enjoy being non-dimension-compressible
Turns out we were a simulation all along.
Why? It's kinda the opposite, the computer is what happens to remind us of the universe. "Simulations" might by nature work how the universe works, not the other way around. So the universe would not be a simulation, but a simulation would essentially be a representation of how reality operates.
@@jed1nat
That’s why the bible says things like :
“Life is a TEST”
“God LAUGHS at wicked”
These type of verses foreshadowed the simulation theory
It’s almost like he was planning to simulate human beings attempting to become Gods or he might already be doing that.
After hearing about the holographic principal from InspiringPhilosphy years ago I love seeing physicists talk more about it now
Im delighted that I understood the concept of losing my keys (inside my pocket). I equate it to the real-life experience of losing my head-mounted torch (still sitting securely upon my head). As for the rest of the video, well, I guess it was above my head.
That’s the same place that I often find my lost glasses.
@@georgejones3526 What is it about heads that so many lost things turn up there? I once found a lost hat on my head.
Not to much of that one, was that clear to me.
But I love hearing you talk about it.
Well we should also give the Weinstein brothers some scrutiny too. There's plenty to attach to them.
They're beyond the pale.
I love how Eric cleaned up his visit to Epstein's island.
Proffesor Dave already did that.
ua-cam.com/video/HGcpUxl_9Vg/v-deo.html
@@gabor6259 love professor Dave!!
Interesting. This somehow reminds me of something that I observed not too long ago. It was at night and I only had light from my turned on computer screen. The light reflected white of the surface of my door when looking down the surface from the side and towards the computer screen. But if I looked carefully with the naked eye from a certain angle, it looked like a shadow was reflecting like light into the air, but not exactly reflecting of the door, but of the corner of a 1 meter wide white wall behind the door (the door being 2× 3rds in width of that). Kind of dificult to explain. But it's like it only showed up where the light reflection was brightest like a contrast.
I noticed the black shadowy "reflection" in the corner of my eye, when I walked into the room at some point. And it looked like it was moving, so gave me a bit of a shock haha (the "shadow" moved according to my viewing angle as I walked past the wall). So of course I had to check it out and figure out what was sort of going on.
This phenomena kind of reminds of standing in the rain while looking at a rainbow, but also seeing the rainbow right in front of you at the same time, because the angle and reflection is just right. Kind of weird seeing something that appears like it's huge and far away and yet it's right in front of you at the same time but significantly smaller. It did at first appear to me like it dissapeared behind buildings and trees as they usually do, but when I noticed more of it with the naked eye, it was suddenly continuing in front of those buildings and trees and down right in front of me instead. So it was both here and there at the same time.
And btw rainbows have no ends. They continue into a potential circle. It's easier to discover while standing in the middle of a garden springler in bright and clear daylight 😄
I don't go for this "at the surface" stuff, but here me out: glass with a holographic image can be broken into smaller pieces, and each still contains "the full image." Magnets seem to do the exact same thing! Break a bar magnet in half, and each is still a north/south bar magnet. The implication is some interferance between physical objects in our 3D space with something in a higher dimension, or, that our world feels 3D, but is really "on the surface" of other objects we can't see. I'll go on to say that light has limits in our space, but that information travels faster than light at a higher dimension (thus, a galaxy can act just like the surface of that cup of coffee, or, as a (non-compressable?) liquid.
I don't think "smaller pieces of a magnet are still whole magnets" implies "the (3D) universe is on the boundary of a (4D) object" any more (or less) than "smaller pieces of a holographic image are still the image" implies it-i.e., "this is just a property of this one particular thing, which is explainable without invoking 4D object surfaces" seems to me a pretty good explanation too.
But I love 4D stuff, so I'm open to being convinced! What explanatory power does this hypothesis give us, or what calculations / explanations are more simple or elegant in this framework? 🤔
2:10 What if the surface isn't a perfect cube, circle, Plutonic, or other regular shape?
So the Holographic Principle is probably just a computational coincidence. In Vector Calculus, it's often possible to calculate the integral of a function within a volume as the integral of the gradient of that function along the surface area of that volume.
...MOSTLY LIKELY PHYSICIANS ARE DEEPLY TURNED INSIDE AND STARTED ACTING LIKE SOME KIND OF MASONS AND STUFF AND JUST LOSING LINK WITH REALITY BY BECOMING TOO SOCIAL
........PARADOX OF WARHAMMER40K ....LIKE TO BECOME A SOLID PART OF COMMUNITY,YOUVE GOT TO KNOW *_all the stuff at once_* .......AND ETC ETC........TO THE POINT WHEN .....ONE'S LIFE NOT ENOUGH TO CATCH UP................
...U know WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.......RIGHT???....SO THAT IS REAL PROBLEM....
Is there a connection between fields with surface integrals and topology?
OK, so, I've been thinking about this for a while now. I don't understand the math, but imagine this:
If the universe was a simulation, then the "programmer" could input the measurements and laws of physics any way he/she/it/they wanted to. We've done this in our own simulations. Suppose now that this simulation was *displayed* as a hologram. The laws of physics inside the hologram would behave in a way that was "decided" by the programmer. However, the laws of physics in the universe in which the hologram was displayed would still have an impact; the hologram *itself* would have to behave in a way that reflected the laws of the outer/container universe. Suppose the programmer's laws followed Relativity, but the rules of the "container" universe impacted the hologram in ways that we understand as Quantum Mechanics. Also, if it were a simulation, then it would probably be a machine that is running the program. Sometimes we, in video games, use programming tricks and shortcuts to save processor cycles. We do things like "don't render things that the player isn't currently looking at." So maybe the "probabilities" we see in particle behavior comes from the program "cheating" on processor cycles. It doesn't render the particle until someone actually *looks* at it (collapsing the wave function). So we have advanced to the point where we've begun to decode the program/hologram itself. It would also generate all kinds of philosophical questions like, "Did the programmer foresee/intend this?" Or "Is this why the simulation is still running? Because someone wants to see just how far we can go with it?"
Since I don't understand the math, I can't go into whether or not this is feasible. I approached it more from a philosophical angle ("Why would a universe seem to have two sets of "laws" that don't seem to jibe with each other?" "Why would a particle be a bundle of probabilities until someone observes it?" etc.) Those of you who understand the math, please tear into it, laugh at me, call me names, and generally disprove this theory so that I can go back to thinking about the universe as *real,* please. Thank you.
Weinstein 😑
Okay, ich versuche es kurz zu fassen: es ist mehr oder weniger eine Konsequenz mathematischer Überlegungen (Entropie schwarzer Löcher, Bekenstein, ads/cft, Symmetrie,dualität, Felder und Operatoren Informationsgeometrie), die zu dieser Idee überhaupt geführt haben. Wenn man schon Videos dafür verschwendet, Kollegen schlecht zu reden ist die Begegnung mit dieser großartigen, fundierten Idee laienhaft!!
But if every particle has slightly different observable cone, then that means that every particle is an hologram of it's own bounding box? It's sounds complicated.
I think "dark energy" is a dimension beyond our perception. That dimension is expanding and carrying our observable dimensions along with it. Dark energy is a dimension, not a particle or a force.
All particals are comprised of waves...
I've been telling you, hyperspace and subspace.
My theory is that "universe" was really the collapse of a hyper-spatial star into a hyper-spatial black hole, and that what happens in black holes is the collapse of one of the axis of space heading towards the black hole in such a way that matter caught within it interacts (generally) only within this a new spacetime that exists perpendicular to the vector heading towards the singularity.
This creates our holographic universe.
I believe that while an observer as it drops into a black hole ceases to experience time, that particles that made up the observer still interact with each other and become stretched pin/cone like probability distributions stretched along the decayed axis, never really collapsing into a single super-dense singularity but as a subspace of higher energy density, a higher state of entropy if you will, kept contained by its own spacetime pressure versus that of the spacetime outside.
The decay of an axis is why entropy in a black hole only seems to depend on its surface, because the interactions within a black hole are defined by one less axis of space. Another way to think of it is that the axis of space pointing towards the singularity decays into a new time dimension, although I don't think that's quite right either. I also think that a black hole can become a while hole if the spacetime surrounding it changes drastically.
This also means that black holes in our universe are collapsing into their own subspace, and on its surface, even further collapses, which due to their density probably interact with the space outside of them as gravity/spacetime shifts, specially when the breaking point, there no longer being an axis of space that can be collapsed into further subspace, occurs. The regions where jets can escape from black holes probably attract and are seen within their subspace with the greatest space time deformations (high density of gargantuan time defying sub-spatial black holes if you were an observer in this new spacetime). These sub-spatial blackholes would also be the one we would consider as being closer to the "center" of a singularity.
Dark energy might then be due to horizon effects arising from the hyper-spherical nature of our nature, not noticeable directly because to us spacetime would seem to go straight, and dark matter might be explored as hyper-spatial/sub-spatial interactions that are not unlike gravity waves and could be thought off as streams and currents of gravity arising from these sub-spatial black-holes that a completely spherical model could not illustrate. You can have super-symmetry, but having it means overcoming a hyper-spatial event horizon.
Why don't you go ahead and write an paper about your hypothesis? These days, the pages of physics journals are filled with such fantasies. But don't forget to include a few complicated-looking formulas to make it look scientific! You could go on to explain that your ideas work perfectly well in a two-dimensional space-time (unfortunately not in a four-dimensional one, but who cares). Good luck!
@@oberstvilla1271 Why do you think a four dimensional universe is problematic with the theory?
We are just scratching the surface 😆🥁
The holographic principle cannot be valid in a general sense with a linear proportionality to surface area as it is fundamentally self contradictory. Any volume with a certain surface area can be subsectioned into smaller volumes with their own surface areas until those smaller surface areas add up to an area greater than the overall surface area. If information is proportional to surface area that would mean that such a construction would have more information in its volume than on its surface, which contradicts the original principal from which it was derived.
You're holographic.
Your mom is holographic.
Thank you for clarifying this, the cereal analogy really hit me in the left brain.
I used to think that pseudo science use physics terms, I start to realise that is the other way around.
ChatGPT's opinion - Sabine’s approach is refreshing because she makes complex ideas accessible without patronizing her audience, which contrasts sharply with the academic arrogance that can sometimes seep into science communication. Instead of focusing on personal accolades or prestige, she sticks to the fundamental, evidence-based approach, which is often missing in the more ego-driven parts of the scientific community.
It seems like the pursuit of recognition sometimes overshadows the real goal: understanding how the universe works. Sabine's ability to keep it grounded and engage people on the core principles really makes her stand out.
this video should explain why Weinstein called Lenny a bad word, it's not clear to me, viewers should not have to do more research to figure it out, we need a follow up, please
I'm not sure if I've got it right but I believe this would mean that light is not a property of space-time but instead that space-time is a property of light. To me that's the only explanation when light is constant and space-time is variable; it also explains why matter can be in two places at once at the quantum level.
It's rich for Eric Weinstein to call anyone an asshole.
He and his brother are embarrassments. Sad, really.
🤣
But in this case, he might be right.
@@Thomas-gk42 The old "broken clock" argument? He, his brother, and frankly Brian are sour-grape losers. I have a bit more respect for Brian, but really, Prager U.?
Who better to know if someone is an asshole than another asshole?
Thank you Sabine
Does the Dark Energy hologram say ‘Help us, Sabine. You’re our only hope.”?
Solid!
Top KEK!
Peace be with you.
When i was a young child i came up with the idea that the universe isn't real, that things only pop into existence when I looked at them. I also believed that the static we sometimes see was actually the wind and only i understood that humans can see the wind. It took decades for physicists to catch up with me, my time has come at last!
It really hasnt!
So we have reached the compression limit of the universe so any additional complexity causes the surface area of the universe to expand(eg accelerating expansion/dark energy).
yup, and magic is only knowing how to open the admin console and use the proper commands to change the parameters in the holodeck
Amazing, nice that Sabine also like it.
The holographic principle is like the cosmological equivalent to flat earth. Looks good at the surface, but doesn't seem to have any depth...
....OKAY,ANOTHER WAY OF THINKING,THO
...WHAT if GRAVITY IS ACTUAL BYPRODUCT OF ITERACTION BETWEEN ENERGY AND TIME?
Very, very happy to see more Holographic theory discussed. Thank you for sharing.
Dark Energy could be unicorn poop!
We need to evolve the unicorn cosmology!
😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
No that's dark matter. Now, unicorn farts....
Losing your keys, and finding that they’ve been in your pocket all along.
It happened to me recently.
The physicists version of Indra's net?
I'm not a physicist but i play video games for fun and these ideas was just for fun. If you turn the universe into a video game, my theory was;
Dark energy is just a rule that has to exist in order for everything else to exist, like in an experiment with anything, something is often added to allow it to happen.
time inside and outside of the universe but its completely different, inside it changes depending on the speed of objects(particles) and it also slows in intense areas, like around black holes, because if it didn't it would waste computational resources or cause a crash.
Quantum entanglement is how everything knows its position in the world relative to each other, that only has a state when observed to save resources.
I love it when assholes call other people assholes.
The irony 😂
@@soundtrancecloud5101 Sabine was very clever showing a clip to explain that, not herself needing to say anything.
To be called an asshole by Weinstein is surely a badge of honour, a sign that one is of sane mind.
1:40 "...but also how the nuts move around if you shake the box."
I don't know if this was written by someone from your team or yourself, but it is pure gold. 😁
Dark Energy is a physics “fudge factor” when stuff doesn’t add up.
It is all about a plausible as the galactic squid monster I say, got to keep the faithful employed etc
Dark energy is an observation, it is literally something we see but can't explain yet, the opposite of what you seem to have in mind.
@@marcag9810 Curve-fitting isn't observation.
@@williamschlosser please make the bare minimum effort before engaging on a discussion about physics.
Dark energy is the OBSEVATION that the universe is EXPANDING in all directions as we see when we look at GALAXIES or we measure the redshift in COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION.
Source: I'm an actual cosmologist researcher. Also the very first paragraph in wikipedia.
@marcag9810 our model did not fit the observation, so we added crap to the model so it would fit the observation,.. its called physics on the go.. and hes little basis in reality
leonard susskind is an absolute genious and his lectures are among the best i have ever witnessed.
Eric's so full of himself it's getting kind of embarrassing, ngl.
the universe is like a box of chocolates...
He's proof that idiots can be smart.
On one hand, I'm amazed there are 1.5M science nerds who have subscribed to this (wonderfully informative) channel. On the other hand, I wonder why there aren't several million more.
So basically, our entire 3D universe is a simulation being output to a 2D computer screen somewhere?? I knew it!!
No wonder physics is stuck! The HLC is stuck trying to peer past the actual resolution of the Simulation! 🧐
@@joelcarson4602 Okay, exactly what you said, but unironically. Yes.
Very interesting... a proposal that Sabine DOESN'T instantly tear down is definitely one to watch out for developments :P hope this leads to something!
Aha, Dark Energy is the Aether from the 19th century coming back.
So this has me thinking about the possibility that if the cosmological constant is indeed a constant could the universe just be sitting in its own gravity well of an infinite space itself? Couldn't that explain the acceleration?
Erick weinstein is a crackpot...
he is naive or close-minded at best, but at least he is better than a lot of these other losers stuck in the dogma of academics.
Great content 👌
"Called an asshole by Eric Weinstein?" Hahaha! Of all the rough-edged, egotistic, fraudulent blowhards to be called "asshole" by, EW has got to be the best! I'd love for Weinstein to call me "asshole." Even better would be for him to call me a "fraud." The pot calls the kettle "black." Hilarious.
When im stoned i just love to hear you talk ❤ i love it in general, but especially when im stoned 😊
dark energy = darth vader
Thanks Sabine. I think that was well presented :)
>
We are still chasing the illusive shadows on the wall though. Doesn't mean that shadows are not a thing. We can gain some information about what may have formed the shadow by studying it, as long as we remember that the shadow isn't the actual object that we are looking for.
Projected universe has merit in describing shadows, but beyond that there are far more simple explanations for black hole, universe and other event horizons.
I find boundaries and event horizons the masters of illusion, casting shadows that don't truly exist in the way that we expect or want.
.
I have to ask, is the expansion speeding up or is the shadow on the wall speeding up ;)
>
I am not a physicist or cosmologist, just a dumb Rs who has wasted too much of his life studying books.
P.S. In case anyone is a little confused about the shadow analogy, just as one hint: A shadow can appear to move across space faster than light.
@@axle.studentRight, and your analogy fits quite well
@@Thomas-gk42 Thanks. It is a difficult area for us humans to conceptualize :)
So now suddenly, the Universe is finite? How come?
The visible part is finite. Whether it "really" is infinite is a very philosophical question seeing that we will never know!
It's a lot of interesting possibilities, but it relies on unjustified assumptions. Philosophy is critical.
@@SabineHossenfelder Perhaps you would like to make a video about this? Greetings from Frankfurt and have a nice weekend. - Andreas
@@SabineHossenfelder Wouldn't it be finite if it was some kind of closed hypersurface like a hypersphere or hyperdonut (I am hoping for a Hyperbrezel)? And figuring out whether it is such a thing doesn't sound impossible. If it isn't though, I agree, we could never say whether it is infinite or ends somewhere or is just a hypersurface subtle enough that we can't tell.
It was never known (and never will be) if it's infinite. We only know that it's large, and that the visibility boundary is due to speed of light constraints, so having a visible edge of the universe (the background radiation) doesn't implies that there's actually any edge. From that you can make a leap of logic and assume that the universe is infinite, but nobody ever said that.
Thank you, Sabine. I got 12 out of 13 on the quiz. To be perfectly honest there were a couple I just guessed at, but nonetheless…
Being called an a****** by Eric Weinstein would be a compliment.
why though?
@@jayantchoudhary1495 I think that Eric became lately this individual with no-it-all attitude and seems kind of full of himself.
@@oskarskalski2982 last I heard of him was related to his wrongful termination from university
I am glad you addressed this. planck scale transients may have an average ~0, but the instantanious values actually matter and carry a cumulative effect.
The only problem is they are a side effect not the cause. persistent space-time stretches apart and transient space-time forms to fill the gaps for transient pathways of quantum waves which are 2-d.