The case for Black holes being nothing but holograms just got even stronger

If there's one thing we've learnt through our years of studying the Universe it's that the impossible is often possible , physicists at the Max Planck Institute in Germany have released a new study which could explain the 2D projected nature of Black holes.

So now the analogy with classical thermodynamics seems clearer: just as fluids at our scale appear as continuous materials despite their consisting of a huge number of atoms, similarly, in quantum gravity, the fundamental constituent atoms of space form a sort of fluid, that is, continuous space-time. A continuous and homogenous geometry (like that of a spherically symmetric black hole) can, as Pranzetti and colleagues suggest, be described as a condensate, which facilitates the underlying mathematical calculations, keeping in account an a priori infinite number of degrees of freedom .

"We were therefore able to use a more complete and richer model compared with what done in the past in LQG, and obtain a far more realistic and robust result", continues Pranzetti. "This allowed us to resolve several ambiguities afflicting previous calculations due to the comparison of these simplified LQG models with the results of semiclassical analysis, as carried out by Hawking and Bekenstein".

Another important aspect of Pranzetti and colleagues' study is that it proposes a concrete mechanism in support to the holographic hypothesis, whereby the three-dimensionality of black holes could be merely apparent: all their information could be contained on a two-dimensional surface, without having to investigate the structure of the inside (hence the link between entropy and surface area rather than volume).
www.dailygalaxy.com...

Does this mean Black holes are Holographic , No , but it could be a further clue to the true nature of our universe and perhaps ourselves and everything in it.

a reply to: gortex

Holographic...

No object which affects the space surrounding it is a mere projection. Since there is no such thing as a hologram which naturally occurs, one can safely assume that regardless of what is meant when a scientist uses the term, a black hole cannot be a hologram, or holographic. It could be strange from a dimensional point of view, but for the purposes of proper discussion on the topic, it cannot be holographic, unless it is a projection, and that cannot be the case unless someone or something is directing it to be projected.

They mean something else by what they are saying, than what they are actually saying.

a reply to: gortex

All it means is that black holes may look 3-dimensional, but may only be 2-dimensional.

The neutrons of the black hole likely are spinning so fast and with such force as they are creating a sort of disk at which the very center becomes a portal, an opening, a wormhole, a doorway, a stargate. That "portal" portion of the black hole (whis is the part I would consider the "black hole") I would definitely translate as two dimensional.

The ring would be circulating so rapidly that centrifugal force would keep the ring from collapsing under gravity. The ring, in turn, acts like the Looking Glass of Alice. Anyone walking through the ring would not die, but could pass through the ring into an alternate universe.

source

a reply to: _BoneZ_

See, I have an issue with such a description.

A hologram is NOT a two dimensional object. A hologram is a projection of an object. A two dimensional object is simply that, and to use the term holographic, simply because it is one word, rather than the slightly more long winded two, is inaccurate.

Again, holograms are projected, and projections are intelligently directed. Unless there is a projector in operation, and someone working the controls, there is no hologram, and the object referred to cannot be holographic. It can be flat, but not holographic.

a reply to: TrueBrit

A hologram is a two dimensional 'projection' of a three dimensional object.

Are you saying there need be an entity to produce a hologram? Is it your argument that a hologram can not occur naturally?

a reply to: TrueBrit

As I said at the bottom of the OP , "Does this mean Black holes are Holographic , No "
Not in the sense that we understand but if as suggested Black holes are 2 dimensional objects encoded with 3 dimensional information then how can a 2 dimensional object exist in a 3 dimensional Universe , unless our 3 dimensional Universe is also a 2 dimensional object encoded with 3 dimensional information.

Jacob Bekenstein proposed the idea in the 70s

Disorder is just lost information, so among its more profound implications is that the amount of information that can be stored in a region of space is determined by the area of a surface surrounding it and not, as one might expect, by the volume inside. This means that a black hole — and perhaps the universe itself — is like a hologram, in which three-dimensional information is encoded on a two-dimensional surface.
Physicists are still grappling with what that means for the universe.
www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: Alien Abduct

It is my understanding that projection requires design and intelligent direction in order to come about, and also that projections do not have the ability to draw in matter or energy, or affect the physical universe in even the slightest way.

Black holes affect the space around them, and the contents thereof. They are, therefore, not projections, holographic, holograms, or anything of the sort. They are objects in physical space, so complicated and improbable that they only represent themselves in two dimensions. There is a MASSIVE difference.

a reply to: gortex

It's good to read an article that makes my head hurt a little and requires 2-3 searches to clarify (or make sense of) terms. I like the new imagery for trying to get a mental concept of a black hole. Whilst I still prefer my own notion of a 4D plughole, the condensate one is pretty cool too. It's something my imagination can hold onto and, I bet, we've both seen the videos about lab-formed condensates.

Another sequence of imagery I like is imagining what it would be like to look at a black hole from many different points in space - kinda like a satellite films the Earth only from more directions. Would space be visibly distorted? Would bright objects be prone to something like the parallax effect? If it was holographic, would an observer see the same thing from all angles of view? Not the BH itself (a spherical singularity), but the effects on local spacetime.

Whatever! The physicists have enough trouble comprehending these things and so my 1.1l 80bhp brain has no chance.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Since there is no such thing as a hologram which naturally occurs, one can safely assume that regardless of what is meant when a scientist uses the term, a black hole cannot be a hologram, or holographic.

What would you consider a rainbow to be then?

I believe that black holes are only in existence when a source of energy is nearby.. They lay dorment if they arent feed

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Light refracted through vapour.

Not a projection in the least, and certainly not a bloody hologram.

a reply to: Kandinsky

The physicists have enough trouble comprehending these things and so my 1.1l 80bhp brain has no chance.

I know that feeling mate ,theories like this remind me why space , time and the Universe in general still hold their grip on me , out there is where magic still exists , our world of certainties doesn't extent to out there.

Personally I like the theory that our Universe itself exists within a Black Hole and within the black holes we see exist other Universes , and on , and on .....
That ones a real head scratcher.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Light refracted through vapour.

Not a projection in the least, and certainly not a bloody hologram.

TrueBrit,
I patiently waited for your reply to this...

Black holes would be Hole-o-grams. Not holograms.

a reply to: rickymouse

Like the Large Hadron Collider that comment was a smashing success.

a reply to: gortex

Personally I like the theory that our Universe itself exists within a Black Hole and within the black holes we see exist other Universes , and on , and on ..... That ones a real head scratcher.

Someone on the Monkey Cage was talking about the potential infinity of this universe. They pointed out that it also extends sub-atomically and it's been stewing in my thoughts since. It's ironic that 'turtles all the way down' could sum up not just our universe, but possibly ones both outside and within this one...like your black hole idea.



There's also the notion of 'frothiness' and how this universe could be like a bubble in a space full of other 'bubbles' that also extends ever onwards towards infinity.

The wording of the original article is ambiguous and has caused some misleading conjectures.

Black holes are very much 3 dimensional celestial bodies. They consist of a length, width, and depth. For obvious reasons the depth of a black hole cannot be measured, however scientists have found a means to determine a black holes gravitational pull using 2 dimensions I.E. Surface area based upon the theory of entropy across this surface area.

In short, they are using the entropy of the surface area of the black hole to determine its size; Instead of determining its size by volume. Its a step in the right direction for sure.

Once they figure out the ratio of matter compression based upon the size and spin of the black hole, then we'll be one step closer to deriving the true space-time constant for gravity, which means unlocking the gravitron.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: gortex

Personally I like the theory that our Universe itself exists within a Black Hole and within the black holes we see exist other Universes , and on , and on ..... That ones a real head scratcher.

Someone on the Monkey Cage was talking about the potential infinity of this universe. They pointed out that it also extends sub-atomically and it's been stewing in my thoughts since. It's ironic that 'turtles all the way down' could sum up not just our universe, but possibly ones both outside and within this one...like your black hole idea.

There's also the notion of 'frothiness' and how this universe could be like a bubble in a space full of other 'bubbles' that also extends ever onwards towards infinity.

So we live in god's bottle of Champagne?

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: gortex

Personally I like the theory that our Universe itself exists within a Black Hole and within the black holes we see exist other Universes , and on , and on ..... That ones a real head scratcher.

Someone on the Monkey Cage was talking about the potential infinity of this universe. They pointed out that it also extends sub-atomically and it's been stewing in my thoughts since. It's ironic that 'turtles all the way down' could sum up not just our universe, but possibly ones both outside and within this one...like your black hole idea.

There's also the notion of 'frothiness' and how this universe could be like a bubble in a space full of other 'bubbles' that also extends ever onwards towards infinity.

So we live in god's bottle of Champagne?

What a nice way of putting it