Well your objection to some "enthusiasts" making this claim (about all information being in an electron etc.) has little to do with anything being said in this thread. I know very little about all of the details of how a hologram works and I don't think I would even know how to compare or apply that idea to a holographic model for reality. There may only be some similarities. I think Bohm liked to call it "holomotion."

I'm also interested to know if any new scientific papers, theories or evidence (since Karl Pribram and David Bohm's theories.)have surfaced.

So I will be interested if anyone finds anything really NEW.

Here’s a slightly more “layman’s view” of the theory of …

The Holographic Universe

In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.

Aspect's experiment is related to the EPR Experiment, a consicousness experiment which had been devised by Albert Einstein, and his colleagues, Poldlsky and Rosen, in order to disprove Quantum Mechanics on the basis of the Pauli Exclusion Principle contradicting Special Relativity.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser.

To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film.

When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.

The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.

Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts.

A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

This fundamental connectedness would correlate with The Fifth Element, and its mathematical proof of all aspects of the universe being energetically connected - Hal Puthoff's assertion in his work on Zero-Point Energy of all charges in the universe being connected and that further mass is in all likelihood an illusion as well -- and both of these modern day theories of physics being in accordance with ancient traditions and philosophies, which claim the same connectedness of the diverse parts of the universe.

To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side.

As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them.

When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.

This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment.

According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality.

Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.

In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.



(Excerpted from http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html)

A little more online reasearch reveals the Nobel Prize winner Gerard 't Hooft is credited with first proposing "The Holographic Principle" in 1992.

His proposals are largely based on what we know about Black Holes. (Much of the stuff I was able to find on this "Black Hole connection" was over my head, but there are some interesting tidbits to be had from what I was able to understand.)

So "The Holographic Principle" appears to be a fairly well reasoned theory by a Nobel Prize winning physicist.

And as with any "popcultural" interpretation of esoteric scientific theories, it is prone to oversimplification amd misinterpretation.

Well, of course.

MassageTrade mentioned that some people are saying that the information of the entire universe is contained in every electron. By why would that be? Electrons are but one of several different type of quantum phenomena. There are also quarks, bosons, and additional leptons besides that electrons.

I do believe that all the information in this universe also resides within that 'quantum field' (whatever the heck that even is).

We put a label on it, and we try to describe it mathematically the best we can, but ultimately we can't even do that beyond recognizing that it appears to merely adhere to particular probabilities patterns, and those patterns are actually affected by the hologram (or universe) itself.

It's the Schrodinger Equation (or the Heisenberg Matrix Equations) that describe these probabilities. However in terms of the Schrodinger Equations we must first put in a 'wavefunction' before we can calculate a probability. The 'wavefunction' that we put into that equation is a description of this universe (i.e. what the hologram is actually doing), then mathematically that equation vomits out a number that gives us a probability of how the "quantum field" will "react" with the current state of the hologram.

I keep calling myself "agnostic" on this issue. (no religious meaning implied there, I'm using that totally abstractly in a deeply philosophical sense)

In fact, let me take a meaning to explain what I mean by that.

I've decided that all philosophy of existence truly boils down to a single question. Are we the "form", or are we the thing that is taking the "form".

Many atheists (or non-spiritualists) take the stance that our consciousness is nothing more than an 'emergent property'. That's the same thing as saying that we are the "form". In other words, our very essence comes into being through form. Period. We are an emergent property of "form".

I've always intuitively had problems with that. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

The other possiblity is that we our true essence is some "other" kind of "stuff". We call that stuff "spirit". Only because we have no clue how to describe it. It's a non-physical awareness.

It's the "non-physical" part that atheists have a problem with. They see more "substance" in an emergent property of a physical form, than they do in this idea of some imagined 'non-physical' spirit.

I'm just the opposite. It's easier for me to imagine a non-physical underlying spirit as having "substance" than it is for me to imagine an emergent property having any "substance".

Perhaps this is because I can imagine a so-called "non-physical" spirit as actually having physics in it's own right. It's just a different kind of physics than what we normally think of.

In that sense then spirit could potentially have far more substance than an "emergent property".

Moreover, for an "emergent property" to have any legitimacy at all, the underlying physics of the universe would need to be 'real'.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that there is no "physical reality" to begin with. It's all spiritual really. And QM certainly points to that, IMHO.

So, now, rather than imagining that we are an "emergent property" of a stupid dead billiard balls (or vibrating strings), what is far more likely, is that we are the essence of living consciousness that gives rise to the illusion that appears to be "physical".

We (western science) had it all backwards from square one.

Science works GREAT for actually manipulating things within the hologram. In fact, that's precisely what it's good for - Technology and medicine, etc., within the hologram.

But as a tool for figuring out the true nature of the hologram it's basically worthless. Well, not entirely, as we have seen from the discussions within this very thread, even science can potentially "figure out" the holographic nature of the universe.

But as you have often pointed out in many threads, before they can do that they need to drop their balls (or strings) and start looking at things from an entirely new perspective.

Wow I need to clean up,cause this s**t just blew my mind.

I know physics and somehow this stuff still has that effect on me

A Holographic Sestina: (light, photon, field, mirror, image, ghost)
by Abracadabra

A universe made of light
from a shimmering single photon
running around producing a field
bouncing from mirror to mirror
life is but a naked image
a mere reflection of a ghost

Does spirit reside within a ghost,
of form that's made of light?
A transitory image,
of an ephemeral fleeting photon.
Are we the same as in the thing in the mirror?
Is far and near, a unified field?

A large unfurled worldly field,
host to every ghost,
who dares to stare into the mirror,
of bouncing rays of light.
An interfering photon,
painting a wondrous image

The imagined becomes the image.
A consciously fashioned field.
Thoughts that guide the photon,
from the psychic mind of ghost.
A mind that says, "Let there be light",
to create its image in the mirror.

The physicists look at the mirror,
and describe the dancing image.
They count the vibrations of light,
as an electromagnetic field.
All the while, denying the ghost,
to worship the fleeting photon.

They idolize the photon,
as they bounce it off their mirror.
Rejecting the theory of ghost,
as the creator of the image.
They demand it's merely field,
of a phenomenon they call light.

But now their photon is stringy,
and they have spaghetti in their image.
Their mirror has interference!
Is it a particle or a field?
It seems they can't get rid of the ghost,
that lives within the light.

Regarding the information storge capabilities of matter…

The Holographic Universe concept doesn’t really say that each and every particle actually contains all the information for all other particles. That is just an oversimplified analogy used to describe it in layman’s terms.

Like quantum non-locality. We don’t think of the two particles as both containing all the information about each other. We simply observe that whatever affects one particle affects the other particle as well – only in the opposite direction. (I like to think of the connection as being reciprocal as well as instantaneous.)

So if we look at it as every particle “having an instantaneous, reciprocal connection to” every other particle, instead of every particle “containing all information about” every other particle, it becomes more palatable from a quantum mechanics perspective, without changing it’s fundamental holographic nature – i.e. any particle can “manifest as” any other particle through it’s instantaeous, reciprocal connection to that other particle.

It's as if the two particles "switch places".

Anyway, that’s my view.

And there is an intereseting correlation to the dividing of a holographic plate...

If you divide a holographic plate in two, the entire image is visible in both pieces.

Now if you continue to divide it, the entire picture is still visible in every piece, but what happens is the image starts to become "grainy". And the smaller the pieces, the granier the picture. This is analogous to the resolution of a digital picture. The fewer pixels available, the granier the picture.

And that aligns well with the same concept of particles "manifesting as" other particles. The picture becomes granier because there are fewer particles/pixels to make up the entire picture. So each particle "chooses" which one it will manifest as acording to it's connections with the other particles - which could be described as "a built-in averaging algorithm" just like what is used in reducing digital images.

In terms of modern QM, the graniness eventually get's down to "one pixel" at the level of Planck's Constant.

(Interesting side note: One article I read described the size of a "quanta of time" as Planck's Constant divided by the speed of light - much smaller grain than we could hope to discern in the forseable future - if ever.)

I actually heard this years ago from a guru, but it was not an electron, but an atom that held enough information to create a universe.

That's precisely what I would imagine as well.

Like MT, I've met radical people to want to assume infinite divisibility. They treat the universe as if it is a continuum.

But it's the very postulate of Quantum Mechanics, that the unvierse is indeed quantized, and not a continuum at all.

This is what I find truly amazing about science and mathematics in general. Quantum Theory truly is saying that the physical universe is indeed quantized. Yet scientists continue to use a mathematics that based on the premises of a continuum.

We really need to go back and abandon our ideas that the number line is a continuum, and re-create a whole new discrete mathematics before we can even begin to move forward again.

Well, if you take a whole atom you've got quarks, leptons, and bosons all rolled into one. So that would at least contain all the fundamental primitives.

Not to jump ahead but all of this information will eventually tie into sacred geometry and the projection of the human form.

I have not gotten into it in detail but here is a link to some interesting information about 3-D projections involving a three dimensional pyramid inside two intersecting spheres and other very interesting things.

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~chenry/

cool

You know, now that I think about it, the use of the term "particle" is a bit misleading. It is actually a "point", not a particle. It would really be more precise to say that "a point in space manifests as a particle" - which really only means "a particle manifests at a point in space.

Bohm had a lot to say about this whole idea of how and why modern physics fails. It's sort of "inside out". Instead of trying to figure out how separate parts make up a whole, Bohm is saying that we should be trying to figure out how a whole becomes divided into parts.

As Abra said, the whole foundation of QM is that things are separate and discrete, not continuous. But the question is, what separates them? What is "the separator"? The fact of non-locality all by itself indicates that they are not truly separate. (That pesky "instantanous connection".) And all Bohm is saying is that that apparent separation is an illusion, as demonstrated by the observed "instantaneous connection".

just what is this notion that something is "supported by science"? science supports nothing but questions everything. evidence might support a theory but science supports no theory. indeed, the job of a scientist is to break a chain of consistency or predictablilty in order to disprove a theory. both einstein and hawkings have said that a theory can never be proven. it can be tested and retested with consistent and predictable result but we never know if the next test will yeild another consistent result. "supported by science"? preposterous.

]


Yay! What an amazing read!

http://www.gizapyramid.com/Leone1.htm

This one is about sound and the Giza pyramid. It sounds really neat, and sort of ties in with stabilizing the holography. (Which is Photonics, or light science)

I can see the controversy over the semantics of words "science".

Perhaps a better way to phrase the question for the purposes of this thread would be to ask the following question:

"Can the scientific method of investigation be used to provide meaningful data with respect to the hypothesis of a holographic universe?"

That's what I meant when I asked if this idea can be "supported by science".

From my point of view: Science = "The Scientific Method of Investigation"

That's all it means, to me.

Although I realize that culturally it has become to mean something quite different. Like many people hold that "science" means, "The opinion of outspoken people who claim to speak for science, whether or not their opinions can be supported by the scientific method of investigation".