34 Subatomic Stories: Do we live in a holographic universe?

There are many ideas rattling around the theoretical physics community that are a bit outlandish, but one stands out. This is the idea that our universe is actually a hologram. In this episode of Subatomic Stories, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln sketches out the theory of the holographic universe.
Holographic projector at home
• How To Make Hologram P...
Sabine Hossenfelder explanation of Holographic Universe
• Why do some scientists...
PBS SpaceTime explanation of Holographic Universe
• The Holographic Univer...
Fermilab Holometer
holometer.fnal.gov/
Fermilab physics 101:
www.fnal.gov/pub/science/part...
Fermilab home page:
fnal.gov

[@michaelblacktree]

Don Lincoln, Sabine Hossenfelder, and Matt O'Dowd: The KZbin trifecta of science awesomeness. 🙂

[@plexiglasscorn]

I 2nd that!

[@jerrdnn3373]

Bruh dont forget Anton Petrov

[@atilafernandes5053]

Why not Nick Lucid (Science Asylum)?

[@rossmcleod7983]

@@jerrdnn3373 can never forget Anton. Hardest working bloke in the business.

[@teashea1]

amen the holy trinity

[@FreshBeatles]

i never thought You would create so many Subatomic Stories. Thank you so much

[@KatjaTgirl]

I'm looking forward to episode 42 when all will be revealed. :)

[@elephantwalkersmith1533]

It was so kind to recognize your staff and his family during this trying time of COVID-19 sickness. We lost our brother-in-law Friday to COVID-19, and we will miss this wonderful man. It’s important to cherish those around you during this trying time. Oh, and my brother-in-law loved your physics...

[@gwal93]

YES. I am a hologram. I know this because people call me shallow, transparent, without substance and I have no effect on the real world.

[@user-el4np5xt8c]

You could have an effect on the real world if you matter enough or put some energy in it.

[@unpossibly]

If Moriarty can become more than just a hologram, so can you!

[@gwal93]

@@unpossibly Thank you for the encouragement... wait I am breaking up ... Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi you are my only hope - fizzz pop blinks out.

[@jeremylecocq826]

tupac is a hologram

[@IlluminedHarrah]

😂😂😂😂

[@Calatriste54]

Your Grandmother was wise, beyond Words..

[@konstantinoupianist]

..and WORLDS..

[@militantpacifist4087]

You should REALLY sell merch, like shirts and hoodies that say, “Even at home, physics is everything.”

[@militantpacifist4087]

@MichaelKingsfordGray You should really grow up and stfu and stop being and asshole to people only because your life is a mess. Plus, you’re the one that should grow up because you keep making stupid comments.

[@georgequalls5043]

The first episode of Star Trek Next Gen that featured the Holodeck had two of the holocharaters asking if they, their families and their memories were not real. I found that part to be quite fascinating.

[@fmissagia]

Your channel, Sabine's and PBS' are my favorite physics channels! Thanks so much for producing such wonderful material!

[@jonathanbyrdmusic]

Just the information in the description of these videos is a gold mine. Thank you Fermilab and Dr. Don.

[@psapre9729]

Thanks for putting together such as great series that explains the latest science in very simple form. Continue the great work. Thank you.

[@baronvonteuchter1412]

Happy thanksgiving from Scotland. Love this series of videos, thought provoking stuff for enthusiastic amateurs!

[@Theraot]

The experiment found no quantization of space? Could you explain how that experiment works?

[@frikkieswanepoel5372]

I second this...

[@karekarenohay4432]

Please explain Dr. Lincoln!

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

My compliments for placing links for PBS Space Time and Sabine Hossenfelder! You three are my top three science providers :D

[@dbuck5350]

Many things have been discovered at Fermilab over the years, important experimental outcomes that have helped direct the course of modern physics. But for a layman like me, the best thing to come out of Fermilab is Subatomic Stories with Dr. Don Lincoln!

[@Ken-no5ip]

Being able to jump from dimension to dimension in math is just astounding.

[@thinkingronin6178]

When Don says, "I beg to differ" on a matter of science, it just means you're wrong.

[@CATinBOOTS81]

He's just super polite! :)

[@thinkingronin6178]

@MichaelKingsfordGray - did your parents have any children that lived?

[@COTU9]

Thanks for the Fermilab Holometer link. That actually addresses some questions for me. Thanks again for your videos!

[@nomnivorous]

Thanks for your great channel and especially for your fantastic attitude and pleasant demeanor! I really enjoy believing I am learning, when I'm probably just consuming media. Either way, I intend on watching well into the foreseeable future.

[@misterphmpg8106]

Hi Don very Special to your Channel besides your incredible ability to explain is the smooth flow of speech that you perfectly get across. It is almost a musical rhythm that always comes to the point. Thanks so much and have a nice time with your family and friends.

[@ARCANEmateCLAN]

Yes! Thank you, I've been asking for a video on this topic for weeks.

[@karekarenohay4432]

Good video and better selection of questions! Thank you!

[@sadekgheidan]

FINALLY! I have waited for almost 2 years for this video. Gonna watch now :)

[@ramiengrey1177]

"Computer, End Program." Okay, we're not holograms ;)

[@diavolokelevra4795]

Maybe the universe is vi

[@romanski5811]

I just love the smile on your face when it's time for questions. :-)

[@bjarnivalur6330]

We don't have thanks giving here in Europe but I can defiantly give thanks to this series.

[@johngrey5806]

You mean in Asia.

[@bjarnivalur6330]

@@johngrey5806 I guess just outside of N-America

[@CATinBOOTS81]

@@johngrey5806 we mean outside of the United States of America 🙃

[@grahamrankin4725]

Another interesting episode. Keep them coming.

[@igorvieira344]

Don, I am your fan and today I got a couple questions for you: 1)Since beyond certain temperature the Higgs Field "turns off" and all particles become massless and considering that as we regress our clocks to the big bang the temperature increases all over the visible universe, wouldn't the universe became, at that moment, timeless aswell, once massless particles doesn't "experience" time? 2) If that's right, is that moment the big bang itself or would it happen before the singularity is reached and, in that case, what would mean for time to pass beyond that moment? P.S. thanks for the videos! Have been enjoying a lot Subatomic Stories.

[@sapelesteve]

Interesting video Dr. Don & I agree with your assessment that it's a "Bit Outlandish"! 👍👍😉😉

[@alicrastd3095]

If I saw Dr. Don at a pub I’d buy him a pint.

[@philiptaylor2366]

A pub? What's that? I think I've forgotten.

[@Wol747]

If we all did that he’d be dead!

[@betaneptune]

Finally someone tells us about the universe being fine-tuned so that life _can_ exist somewhere, and not instead be possible everywhere. Other scientists in videos like these talk about that life can't exist almost anywhere in the universe, or focus on a single number that has a surprising limit (I forget the details). Thanks for showing me that I'm not alone! While I am not a creationist, this is their only good argument, as even Sean Carroll admits, because it plays by the rules. Then he says it's still a terrible argument and makes an argument about a single number. I'll have to go back and find the video.

[@janettenacillaRMT]

Hi Don not a physics professional but I love to learn about the natural world. I just want to thank you for your knowledge. You explain the complicated world of physics in such a way that even children would easily grasp its concept. Happy holiday to you and your staff. By the way I love your jokes😊

[@topquark6919]

Very interesting & thought provoking.

[@YatiAcharya]

Arvin Ash has an excellent video on this as well!

[@astrophotographyenthusiast5273]

Loved this episode! Glad the person raised the question about the universe being 500x bigger than the visible universe. I need to see how they measured the CMB to get that. So amazing we can figure such things out. Other than Dune(which im hyped for) are there any other major experiments going on in the particle physics world?

[@jorgepeterbarton]

I think expansion beyond the sphere of whats visible or cosmic horizon. The observable universe includes what we can see "into the past" but never could see in its current state as moved beyond light speed expansion (cosmic horizon). So we just know the expansion rate and how big the CMB is and how long its had to expand?

[@101starting]

Great job as always very interesting wonder what you think about the E8 lattice ;)

[@jonadams8841]

I do appreciate very much the cost of a pint at the pub. Especially Energy City. Cheers!

[@radekc5325]

Fun fact: as far as I can see, Bell's inequality is only an inequality if we expect quantum formation in all three independent (spatial) dimensions. If we accepted quantum information was one dimension less, there would be no inequality. Then, the entire quantum weirdness (hidden variables, the lack of them, etc.) would not exist. To me this is a compelling reason to look into this hologram business. If we could untangle "the stuff" to actually hold solid quantum information in one fewer dimension than it appears, and then one extra dimension is an illusion (ie does not have quantum information), so many things would be... simpler. Perhaps we should investigate it as a mathematical trick and see what happens: find an (equivalent) transformation of the quantum world in which information is perfect in one dimension less and fully undefined in one extra dimension, as opposed to the current maths that has three identical spatial dimensions, all equally weird.

[@alexeigarbuz8366]

One might think that this is the prelude to a broader topic like if we live in a simulation. I'm sure you'll speak about that one day. Keep up the great work, I'm loving this shorter videos that give you a glimpse into complex matters.

[@pansepot1490]

Sean Carroll has talked about the simulation hypothesis a few times. Search for his videos if you are interested.

[@alexeigarbuz8366]

@@pansepot1490 Thank you, I know something about the topic but I would like to hear his take about this.

[@Alexagrigorieff]

A hologram is essentially an optically generated Fourier Transform. Fourier Transform also appears in various parts of Quantum Physics. You can probably find analogies between these different appearances of FT.

[@ax3king_]

Does the Holometer show that space is not quantized? or that there were no fluctuations/jittering in quantized space? It is not clear that there ought to be any fluctuations as a result of space being quantized, nor that there ought to be any constraints to movement in a quantized space that could easily be detected (by shifts in brightness), unless the Holometer was designed to be time sensitive rather than sensitive to the light fluctuations. It sounds like fermilabs built a budget LIGO, that could better detect "gravitational waves" if they exist, rather than if space is quantized.

[@catman64k]

i have a question: If we talk about a universe dimension, we always talk about any number of spacial dimension + 1 time dimension. would be a universe with 2 time dimension possible, and if so how would it look like?

[@CATinBOOTS81]

That's look like a great topic for a new episode of... Subatomic Stories! 😎

[@seguroquehayotro]

Hi Don! What do you think about Roger Penrose's "Orchestrated objective reduction " theory for conciousness?

[@dominicellis1867]

Could you do an episode on the many attempts to quantize time specifically?

[@danielpenagosdordevic]

Hey Don love the series I was wondering if you could make a video about the two way speed of light issues and how can we truly test that theory

[@MatzeJib]

Dear Dr. Lincoln, I love your videos and I am really happy, that this videos topic is the holographic principle, so that I can finally ask this question. Is the following idea concerning a possible connection between the holographic principle and the phenomenon of entanglement feasible? What if the properties of each elementary particle are determined by the properties of several points on the (theoretical) surface of the universe and some of these particles „share“ one or more of these points. Now if there is a change in one of these surface-points this leads to a change of the properties in all of these elementary particles, which we see as entanglement. The only problem I see is the fact, that the information from the surface needs to be transmitted instantaneously (i.e. faster than light). I have not seen this in any other videos about the holographic principle yet and I would really love to know, what you and your colleagues think (or already have thought) about this. With best regards from Germany Matthias

[@adohmnail6445]

Excellent video.

[@jballenger9240]

I DO trust you!! Thank you, and Ian, for your work at Fermi Lab and phantasmagorical presentations. You are updating my 20th century year of general college physics. Just between you and me (and your 400K subscribers) I never liked or understood Newton's explanation of gravity and why I didn't or couldn't float or fly. Physics became more interesting after mechanic and the early subatomic stories, but I don't remember any glimples of general relativity. Bummer. I'll keep listening to "the rest of story", to quote Paul Harvey. A subscribed follower..."To infinity and beyond!" Healthy, safe holidays 😷🦠😷

[@k1RpKgwD]

Good work, Ian 👍🏼

[@davidfrischknecht8261]

I wouldn't say I agree with the Holographic Principle, but my favorite metal band, Epica, released an album several years ago about that idea called The Holographic Principle.

[@TedToal_TedToal]

I’m curious about the shape that represents a black hole, that I’ve been seeing everywhere lately, including in the introductory graphics of your videos. It looks like a disk with a bright band around its equator (accretion disk?), a thick bright band surrounding the half of the disk ABOVE the accretion disk, and a THINNER bright band around the half of the disk BELOW the accretion disk. My question is, why is the band on the bottom side thinner than the one on the top side?

[@radiowallofsound]

Don, could you do a video covering the ER=EPR conjecture and what's your opinion about it? I love these black hole related topics, great video!

[@XEinstein]

I think he has a long video on that topic already

[@radiowallofsound]

@@XEinstein I couldn't find any

[@XEinstein]

@@radiowallofsound neitger can I. Perhaps it was a PBS Spacetime video then but I also can't find that one. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@VelvetCondoms]

What are some experiments that you think would be very helpful for modern physics problems, but you think are not runnable due to budget?

[@folkertjanhoogstra820]

Interesting question

[@abekane7038]

@@folkertjanhoogstra820 I agree, I hope he answers this one! Good ask Nate Watson

[@geeteshlashkari8260]

Hey! When you just talk about the black holes a bit in the video. One question came to my mind of black hole information paradox, it is often said that after knowing the phenomenon Hawking Radiation....there comes a paradox, that when the black hole will die where will the information go from it ? But we don't know that exactly what is going on inside a blackhole so might be the stuff which we are considering as information had converted into energy and that energy is released by the blackhole by hawking radiation. So what is the problem we are facing??

[@thedeemon]

It's about quantum information, whether two different states can evolve into the same state so that we can't say which one was the original. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fneQaneva851lZY

[@geeteshlashkari8260]

@@thedeemonOk, thanks.

[@PitchWheel]

Professor Lincoln, is the CMB the image of the entire Universe, of our current visible Universe, or something in the middle? Thank you

[@Seekthetruth3000]

Consciousness is everything.

[@OMASSITY]

Consciousness is what created everything yes

[@aldamaro5960]

Thank you for the very well made video! I have a question: a spheric universe would be an equivalent physics concept of the very small loop dimensions introduced in the extra dimension video?

[@johngrey5806]

This is the "turtles all the way down" analogy, right?

[@aldamaro5960]

@@johngrey5806 Sorry, I'm not familiar with that. Would you please tell me?

[@Condor512]

Dr Don, Question: Have you read all the books in your bookcase(s)? Secondly, of the books on the shelf behind your head, which is your favorite (from Cleopatra going right)? Thanks. [asking 'for a friend' :-)]

[@gworfish]

My favourite thing about Dr Don's videos on highly speculative ideas is how well he reminds us that you shouldn't believe in things until there is evidence. I suspect it is in some part due to him being an experimental rather than theoretical scientist, and I think it is criminal that our culture holds the later in such higher esteem than the former.

[@dianastevenson131]

James Lovelock has made the point that "science" today has become all about modelling and prediction (because governments and organisations find this useful) rather than observation and experiment.

[@virajkapani6159]

I am a big fan of your incredible content. I had a request for a video. Could you make videos on the solutions of the Schrodinger Equation?

[@jonathankarty3707]

Dr. Don, could you do a video where you walk us through a bit of data that shows some of these big ideas? For example, electroweak unification or the observation of the top quark or Higgs Boson, or perhaps just a simpler thing like the decay of a muon that indicates the mass of the W boson intermediate? The speculative stuff is fun, but my day job is as an analytical chemist, so I like cool data too.

[@redreuben5260]

My take on the holographic universe isn’t that it’s generated like a hologram but is as illusory as one. Matter is mostly space, there is more space in our bodies or the table or this phone than actual matter so reality is actually an illusion. Of sorts.

[@tresajessygeorge210]

THANK YOU... PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!

[@CATinBOOTS81]

While I love this series, I'm always blinded when, while watching the episode in the dark of my room, suddenly on my 46" tv a huge white screen appears with the questions from the watchers 😱😱😱 Surely it would be really appreciated if you can just keep a small window with the question, leaving the scene on with Don reading the question... like in PBS Space Time! Thank you in advance 🙃

[@alexandernichols413]

Dimensionality emerges from the way quanta interact. Any computer file is just a single dimension of 1s and 0s. Apply the proper interpretation and you can get still images, two dimensions. Or you can get video, two space plus one time equals three dimensions. Three dimensional polyhedra with animations gives you four dimensions. And so on, and so on. All from a 1 dimensional string of binary.

[@Jehannum2000]

I liked the re-use of the cube of cubes diagram.

[@Tutul_]

I've a basic question about magnetism. I know that electro-magnetism is carried by photon. But I don't understand how to plug that with the magnetism. It look like a onion shaped area where the interaction can occur. But as far as I know we don't get photon between two magnetic object. And yet we can see the shape of that onion area with metallic powder. Please help me understand that mysterious interaction (electricity and magnetism where always hard for me, didn't click with what I was told, my experience and what I know about other physics subject).

[@scotthammond3230]

Question, in the search for susy, dark matter, axions, etc with proton-proton particle colliders, is there any concern that conserved quantum numbers of the protons will preclude detection of some of these exotic particles? Or is it simply enough to have high enough energies and luminosity?

[@SaberTooth2251]

Why is the entropy of a black hole proportional to surface area? I see it stated but never explained.

[@WDIO-RADIO]

Yes, photonic-like energy effect based, it appears to exist between two concavish mirrors with C speed energies bouncing between them inducing repeating, fractal copies that extend away in all directions.

[@rogerreading8456]

Thank you for this series its been wonderful and insightful. However, I have a question about the cosmic background radiation picture that everyone uses. Why is it the shape of a football? I would expect it to be more of a sphere. Is this because the universe itself is spinning on an axis which flattens the "poles" and elongates the "equator"?

[@adarshr9967]

What is your take on the 'fractal' nature of holograms (as in the whole picture can be recreated if parts of the recording medium are lost)? Does that translate to being a basic property of the universe?

[@mydogbrian4814]

Although the entire picture can be reproduced by the frgment of the original the resolution of the projected holographic picture will be lower. - In other words, the projected picture gets fuzzier as the fragment of the whole negative gets smaller. Your trade off is; missing detail.

[@louislesch3878]

Dr. Lincoln, regarding entangled electrons, as I understand it, there is technology today that can generate about 40 pairs per second and then store them in single-electron transistors SETs. In your video and also Matt's and others, it is explained that although the particles are entangled, you can't compare the results of how the wave function collapses any faster than the speed of light even though the pair have collapsed simultaneously even across vast distances. My question is why can't the fact that the wave function has collapsed be useful for FTL communication? If you were to collapse one pair at a time at a certain rate and then change that rate, isn't this a form of communication? This is effectively how an FM transceiver works for example. Of course, you are limited with your bank of entangled pairs from the beginning of say a deep space mission, but if you left with billions of entangled pairs couldn't you send a message at FTL in the form of frequency modulation of collapsing wave functions, even if it was Morse code for example?

[@wassimhammami4707]

Hi doctor. I have a question. Since the univers is neutral (does not have an electric charge) how come that black holes can have a electric charge along the mass and the spin ? Where this electric charge comes from? Thanks.

[@sagittariusa2008]

"Dad, check out the graphics in my new video game!" "Son, come outside and checkout the holographics in our universe!"

[@rolandddo]

Would you say that the future in the knowledge of physics depends more on our discovering something empirical in a place like CERN, or rather on a mental idea that we can verify through mathematical equations?

[@aryantiwari7877]

By what suitable experiments can physicists rule out that space is not a simulation or a hologram? Also what is space then?

[@abekane7038]

I love your question, but being a boltzmann brain, I'd say we can't allow ourselves to answer!

[@tombruner9634]

On "pure energy", in the original Star Trek series Mr. Spock identified "pure energy" more than pretty much any phenomenon, with the possible exception of "near Earth parallel", so it must be a thing. I'm still not sure what either of them mean, but the "near Earth parallel" may be derived from the infinite universe musings wherein if you travel far enough through an infinite universe you'll eventually find yourself, or at least a near you parallel self, which is better than doing so by seeking wisdom from some mystic in the Himalayas, in my opinion anyway. So the question is about the infinite, or flat, universe. Apparently the universe is flat, which means that there is insufficient mass to make it curve back in on itself and collapse, but enough that it will stop expanding at the end of time. This is either a change or an example of the Mandela effect because I remember it being saddle shaped at some point, and so prone to diverging parallel lines that no one wants to deal with, but maybe I fell through from a parallel universe, or a parallel hologram, or maybe a parallelogram. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that the Earth is not flat, since I have circumnavigated it in the East-West direction, and have traversed nearly from pole-to-pole in my Navy adventure. It is consistent with something roughly spherical, definitely not flat. So was the universe saddle-shaped at one point, or am I a fugitive from one that is? Is it going to change again? If so, why and under what circumstances?

[@LLaccitm]

In one of your videos you mentioned that the temperature comes from the vibration of the atom and that there is no upper limit of temperature. I've been thinking about this ever since. If the vibration is some kind of movement, wouldn't the speed of light set an upper limit?

[@cmuller1441]

I have a question concerning the fall in a black hole. The distant observer "O" will see the one falling "F" stopping at the event horizon. If the black hole evaporates (and the observer lives trillions of years...) wouldn't he see chasing the shrinking event horizon and never crossing it until the black hole disappears? F would then see the same thing but much faster?

[@The_Kiosk]

The other half of so called holographic universe hypotheses involve the fact that a piece of glass containing a hologram, when broken the pieces of which each contain a perfect proportional copy. The idea is that the cosmos is self similar. It overlaps with fractals as well.

[@harshad761977]

Sometimes I am wondering about discoveries made by organizations like Fermilab, LHC etc. Do they make all of those details public or some of them or most of them keep it as classified?

[@ornessarhithfaeron3576]

There is no sense in keeping science classified.

[@harshad761977]

I mean if someone spending tons resources for R&D then they may want to earn it back from those findings

[@KohuGaly]

Monetization and secrecy is much more common in applied research. There you are making something that you could make money out of. These organizations mostly do fundamental research. Their discoveries aren't really a product you could monetize. It's also the reason why these organizations are mostly funded by governments. Unlike private companies, governments are less concerned with financial profitability and can afford to look at a bigger long term picture.

[@ornessarhithfaeron3576]

Yeah, pretty much. It makes no sense to keep *science* classified, but it's understandable for some *technology* to be classified. And you don't even have to go very far to find classified technology. IIRC, even the recipe for WD-40 or Coca-Cola is classified.

[@georgekanev6644]

Mathematically good explanation again (Brian’s Greene lecture!), but we are interesting here about fitness of application of mathematical equations in physical phenomena. So firstly what means one dimension particle motion (this time two dimension event: probability in one dimension space?!)? Physically it is means nothing because always space dimensions are three x, y, z hence one dimension space doesn’t exist, as well three dimension space also doesn’t exist if there is not what to describe i.e. absolute space! Why this mathematically formalism is unfit for physical application? Because any phenomenon actually does represent all generalize coordinates dynamical depending actions and there is no way to examine particular process (for example one dimension motion) without to take into account the dynamical dependences by the rest of “dynamical world”! So in the physically phenomena always needs to use vector analysis mathematical formalism which it isn’t fit with the shown equation -∂V/∂x=m (d^2 x)/(dt^2 ) because (see page 332 complements USM www.kanevuniverse.com ) ∂V/∂x always is grad(V)=∂V/∂x i ⃗+∂V/∂y j ⃗+∂V/∂z k ⃗ and respectively in vector mode must to be the acceleration as well in shown equation! Why it is so? Because the Lagrangian function of energy always must to apply about fluctuation of energy in all generalize coordinates “simultaneously” (is it possible simultaneously in one real but not absolute or empty space?!). Again from where does come this difficult in so called marriage between classical and quantum mechanics? From here: The wave’s particles are not wave of absolute or empty space which we accept wrongly now but wave of thickening and expanding of the space around the particle itself because of the inertial character of the field (see part I USM www.kanevuniverse.com) That is why the wave equation can gives us only probability for particle position on the “one dimension space” which in this case is “zero” line of the wave! Dispute that this is correct determination mathematically there are consequences for real space description by this formalism and that is unlimited integrals in many quantum mechanical tasks like this one: ∫_(-∞)^∞▒φ^* (x)φ(x)dx which is probability in infinity one dimension space, hence there absent action of another acceleration upon this wave and therefore in absolute space which exist only in our imagination but not in reality. That is why such integrals become unlimited because there absent another action upon the wave which is impossible in reality because that wave cannot be alone in the universe! So again I should remind again this: Good point Brian, whether the space and time are absolutely (exist without the objects described there or not). Well I’m not convinced in this conclusion. Let me explain: To be possible to apply the special relativity in this case we need the two coordinates: one connected to the space which is expanded and another one which has to be connected with some hypothetical absolutely space, but according to USM www.kanevuniverse.com such space doesn’t exist, briefly because of this: Let return towards USM www.kanevuniverse.com part I pages: 8 and 9, where is given the essentially explanation of field creation and there is said that the inter movement between the objects can to be event almost segment (straight line). On the fig 4 and 5 page 11 (USM) is given the essence of electrical charge creation and you can see that the hypothetical electron (can to be the muon and other particles which use the resonance radius of electron, see further in theory), this electron there moves in some harmonic curvet line because of the inertial action and contraction with the nearest orbital systems. So we can make a conclusion: the harmonic oscillation of some particle (through which it creates its own centripetal field) can become almost straight line because there the space continuously expands or contract around this line. Here must to remind that according to USM in the universe doesn’t exist absolutely space, the spaces are only the distances between the objects and if these distances absent, there wouldn’t be orbital systems and therefore no fields no masses, simply nothing, which means there it isn’t something to be described which to shows existence of absolute space itself. But let suppose that we can find out three objects in the universe faraway enough so the playing of physical phenomena on the center of this coordinate almost don’t interact with these objects and we can mark this coordinate as a second one that we needed. So can we accept this second coordinate like “absolutely space”? Yes, but with the reservation “almost don’t interact” with the three chosen object, which means “almost absolutely space”, because these three objects actually are part from the real expanded space. So again absolute space is fiction but not reality! And what means that something can move with not defined speed? That is possible only if the two hypothetical object which we compare don’t exist each other (they haven’t dynamical interaction), but then the second needed coordinate (absolutely space) again doesn’t exist! So that is the conclusion: Quantum mechanics which is build upon the wave equation can give us only probability of some process but not exactly answer and only to some extend of accuracy which in difference with classical mechanics, cannot be estimated! G.Kanev

[@alexvilonyay8597]

Is it possible for two particles in superposition to interact with eachother? How do we know when they are in a superposition in the first place?

[@k_tell]

Question: I'm glad you talked about the different frames of reference, falling into a Black Hole vs watching someone fall into a Black Hole at about 2:30 because I have been trying to get my head round one aspect of this for some time now, and it's this... If we never see anything cross the event horizon of a Black Hole in our frame of reference how can we have Black Holes at all in our frame of reference? Surely if nothing has ever crossed their event horizon there is nothing inside them and they don't exist! But then if they don't exist, they don't have an event horizon for something to stop at, so something would fall in! Then they do have an event horizon so everything stops and they don't exist, then they don't have an event horizon and things can fall in so they do! To me it seems like the Grandfather paradox, except we know Black Holes exist!

[@EyeDreamMellowDees]

"an observer never sees anyone fall into black hole..." how come we heard one black hole fall into another black hole followed by silence...??!! why would sound be any different than sight...?

[@IntraFinesse]

The Schwartzchild radius of 2 colliding BH = their combined radius. Thus the moment their event horizons tough, they are both inside the combined new larger black hole. (You do have to account for the mass lost as gravitational waves, but you don't need their singularities to overlap)

[@EyeDreamMellowDees]

@xrm160xqw "in our reference time frame no thing has entered any black hole since the beginning of time and it never will..." why are we told black holes destroy &, at least partly, "eat" stars...?

[@sobertillnoon]

If I'm in an extreme gravity field do I appear any different to me? I get how length contraction works for distant observers bit what if I'm the observer of me? Will I look any different being in warped spacetime?

[@thedeemon]

Besides extremes like singularities, at every point of the 4D manifold it looks locally flat, i.e. equivalent to an ordinary Minkowski spacetime in some vicinity of that point. Which means unless you're very close to a singularity you shouldn't see yourself any different.

[@sobertillnoon]

@@thedeemon so when I start getting pulled apart by the gravity I wouldn't look any longer?

[@thedeemon]

@@sobertillnoon You would. This is a bit different, you'll feel it as a force pulling you and deforming you. Not because of length contraction at a point but because of different trajectories of your parts.

[@zornslemmon2463]

Do you think requiring the number of dimensions to be integers is too restrictive? For instance, if the dimensionality of space is fractal (e.g., DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-77855-9), our equations based upon the assumption of integer-dimensional space can never be better than approximations to reality.

[@OldGamerNoob]

so the mass of a neutron and proton can determine if it decays or not? I assumed that decay times were only found experimentally. Any chance that this calculatiin might be explained in some easy-ish to understand way?

[@jkinkamo]

At event horizon the wave function amplitude = 0. The guy enterig the b/h still measures different w/f amplitude?

[@jamesblank2024]

General scientific principles are typically discovered by anomalous experimental outcomes and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning from those new principles is then used to make predictions to be confirmed by experiment. With this hologram idea, general principles are being induced from mathematical constructs, which then deduce more mathematical constructs. At least the experimentalists confirmed space is not quantized using an economical apparatus.

[@nafeesaneelufer5023]

Can we create micro blackhole by arranging Gamma Ray sources along the circumference of circle and allowing gamma rays from all the sources falling at the centre of this arrangement at the same time? So we can get huge amount of energy packed at centre thereby mass as per E=mc^2.

[@hcesarcastro]

7:40 I once read about the question if protons decay or not. But cannot a proton decay into a W+ boson and a neutron via the weak force? What is difference between this interaction and what physicists call "proton decay"? Also, I read that proton decay is important for some hypothesis such as a SU(5) GUT, however it is unclear to me why proton decay is of such relevance for those hypotheses.

[@Lantalia]

The maximum amount of information inside a sphere of space time scale with the surface area of the sphere, as, if you try and go to that maximum, you end up with a blackhole, whose information bits scale with it's surface area

[@cauchym9883]

Since you've linked to one of her videos, what do you think of Sabine Hossenfelder's book Lost in Math? She has some thoughts that I think you have an opinion of your own on, like if funding expensive follow up projects to particle collider experiments like the LHC really is the right thing to do.

[@krabbshaq3751]

I wish you had dived into ADS/CFT correspondence in this video.

[@ivan_dramaliev]

Isn't the total # of "quantum" cubes on the surface of the larger cube smaller than 6 * N^2 (after subtracting the overlapping edges)?

[@drdon5205]

Technically true, but a small perturbation for large N

[@nicoleoutis7112]

The 3d information of a volume being equivalent to the 2d information on the surface looks - for me - like an holomorphic funtion being defined in a place by the values on the contour (Cauchy's integral formula), Is the universe complex differentiable ? :)

[@bedriozgurguler1269]

The main basis or inspiration of the holographic universe comes from the fact that the physics law of attraction works just the same as for the fundamental particles in electric force as the attraction in gravitational masses. For our knowing these two forces works in different logical bases (or do they?) and the people tries to bind these two force formulae together with saying that these should be on the same geometry and be part of a system that is the same in it's all unit parts. Although this is a very attempting idea, it's a little bit off, at least for the bases it depends on. There can be found a more logical and scientific basis for an holographic universe. It just needs more love and diving into the real physics other than just picking up an idea and dream about it. PS: I am a physicist and dream about a lot of things and eventually put the non-scientific sides of the dream and then serve the dream as a scientific idea. It's no bad to dream but it's essential to filter it through science. Even at sleep and in dreams, Physics is Everything!

[@KaiseruSoze]

Is the universe fine tuned or is the standard cosmological model?

[@johugra1]

Dear Dr Don, I used to build multi-dimensional financial databases. If I wanted to record a property my database had to have a dimension for it. Applying this to the universe, three dimensions would not allow movement and therefore time. So ok 4 dimensions, but that does not allow any of the other kinds of fields we see in the universe. No gravity, no electric/week nuclear/strong nuclear forces. They would all require their own dimensions just to be recorded in the database. Could this help to explain why string theories have so many dimensions?