One solution, proposed by Susskind and Dutch physicist Gerard 't Hooft in the mid-'90s, was that when an object gets pulled into a black hole, it leaves behind some sort of 2D imprint encoded on the event horizon. In essence, the same thing was thought to be true with particles.īut there was a problem: If a black hole disappears, then the information present in any object that may have been sucked into it seemingly disappears, too. It's been cut into tiny pieces, but it hasn't disappeared, and given enough time, the documents could be reassembled so that you'd know what was written on them originally. Even though they're cut into tiny pieces, the information present on the pieces of paper still exists. It's long been thought that physical information can't be destroyed: All particles either retain their original form or, if they change, that change impacts other particles, so the first set of particles' original state could be inferred at the end.Īs an analogy, think of a stack of documents that are fed through a shredder. However, this idea prompted what's known as the black hole information loss problem. An illustration of radiation escaping from a black hole. Eventually, as this energy bleeds away from the event horizon - the black hole's outer edge - the black hole should completely disappear. In 1974, Stephen Hawking famously discovered that black holes, contrary to what had long been thought, actually emit slight amounts of radiation over time. The idea originally came out of a pair of paradoxes concerning black holes.ġ) The black hole information loss problem ![]() Where did the idea that the universe might be a hologram come from? And as of yet, not all physicists believe we have a good way of testing the idea experimentally. Rather, they're intriguing suggestions that our universe could be a hologram. These calculations aren't the same as a mathematical proof. There's no direct evidence that our universe actually is a two-dimensional hologram. "It's become a working, everyday tool to solve problems in physics."īut there's an important distinction to be made here. "It's not considered some wild speculation among most theoretical physicists," says Leonard Susskind, the Stanford physicist who first formally defined the idea decades ago. ![]() In short, the laws of physics seem to make more sense when written in two dimensions than in three. But when physicists assume it's true in their calculations, all sorts of big physics problems - such as the nature of black holes and the reconciling of gravity and quantum mechanics - become much simpler to solve. Like the characters on a TV screen, we live on a flat surface that happens to look like it has depth. ![]() The thinking goes like this: Some distant two-dimensional surface contains all the data needed to fully describe our world - and much like in a hologram, this data is projected to appear in three dimensions. The idea isn't that the universe is some sort of fake simulation out of The Matrix, but rather that even though we appear to live in a three-dimensional universe, it might only have two dimensions. Some physicists actually believe that the universe we live in might be a hologram.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |