Holographic Principle and other concepts
I have removed my post on the singularity as I feel after watching some further docos/Utube I don’t have enough knowledge to properly comment, and will post it again when I am more sure of my facts. However I am still not a supporter of the Holographic Principle which explains how 3D objects can disappear into Black Holes whilst being retained as a 2D image on the boundary of the singularity. Thus in this serious scientific concept we are only holographs, possibly reflected off the edge of the Universe. That seems to me to be wrong, so I suggested another mechanism to explain the apparent disappearance of information in a singularity. But I now think I was jumping the gun without the required knowledge, so will add it again when I have more information.
Thanks for comment Harry but I am not commenting on the art side of things rather the scientific. The Sci Am article was in the 1990s and showed differential equations with a hollow centre from memory, I will find it one day and post a link. The interesting thing was that the equations extending concentrically from the centre showed highly ordered graphics, and also Nothing was at the centre, surrounded by some chaos. As we now know, Nothing actually contains energy in which particles appear and disappear, and for some reason some matter was retained in the early Universe and not annihilated by antimatter as in a vacuum or Nothing, hence matter in the Universe became a possibility.
However not only matter becomes a possibility, but Order and complexity become possible if matter is not completely annihilated, although as known eventually even that succumbs to entropy. Thus cells are organised into organs in highly ordered and complex structures, and molecules into amino acids into very complex proteins and enzymes. The organism arises from virtually nothing into an immensely complex superorganism containing trillions of bacteria and many organs providing different functions. However at the same time cell apostasis occurs so that many cells die throughout a lifetime, and there is an entropic end to all that order and complexity as life declines and ends.
Perhaps the Universe is beautiful in many ways, but it is also hugely destructive, hence we have destructive singularities and the predator/prey conundrum; in the empty vacuum matter is created and immediately destroyed; and life is born but later ceases. Nature is not just pretty nor purely creative, but if you have noticed the most destructive predators are also some of the most beautiful, which is, as a biologist rather than physicist, a paradox that I find interesting. Please see image of kitty on this site for instance. I feel that Einstein showed the creation of matter, but there needs to be a formula for its demise, because there always seems to be exponential or another type of decline, including in massive bodies like the Sun, so that all matter conforms to the entropy principle, regardless of the level of complexity it has reached.
As a biologist I sometimes think that physics theories seem a little “out there”, and one of these is the Holographic Principle, by which we are not real 3D bodies, but images, enabling only 2D information to be retained at the boundary of the singularity. I also think that the Multiverse is likely to turn out to be a series of probabilities, by which many universes could have come into being, however ours was the one that did as it has a remarkable set of required parameters to do so.
I sometimes wish Astrophysicists would come down to Earth a little. I know the Universe is full of unexplainable and extraordinary phenomena, of which Life is decidedly one, but I still feel more logic needs to come into the explanations. For example it seems obvious from recent evidence that seems to indicate our Universe fits the “flat” model in which it is infinite, rather than having boundaries. How does one have a reflection off an edge of the universe that is not there, if that is how the holographs are formed? How also does one have multiple universes as ours is infinite so leaves no room? Perhaps mathematically it is possible to have multiple infinities for multiple universes- otherwise where is the logic?
I do not think that Time is real however in the sense of being a separate dimension, I think it is a derivative of 3D, that is, it equates to change in form, so that it still real, but a derived property. However again my maths is not too good with that and I imagine if I trawled thru Utube I would find mathematical proof that Time exists as a separate dimension. I am not particularly skilled in the higher maths that is required to understand astrophysics, although increasing it is being required for ecological theories, so I may have to improve there. But it seems to me although the maths is obviously highly sophisticated, the logic sometimes seems to be missing!
It thus seems logical to me from a number of angles that 3D Life, and other bodies, are decidedly real rather than holographic images. If the latter were true, what arose from nothing was not matter and antimatter but image and anti-image which seems to me unrealistic, as we know that matter does indeed derive from energy from Einstein, and there seems little evidence it is not real and 3D. Therefore…find other explanation…. for the disappearance of 3D information in black holes!
However I do have to qualify my rather speculative posts on the basis of not knowing enough of the maths or the physics required, to understand the sophistication of some of these theories, even if the logic seems to have gone completely AWOL! Is this a logical or an illogical Universe? To my mind it is a supremely logical one, which is exemplified by the mathematical fluidity of it, so that some think it is a mathematical Universe, and that matter etc. flow on from that. I think this is partially correct.
However if surmising that illogical things exist such as Holographic Life and Matter, does that lead to the premise that there are one or more illogical universes? And that therefore the maths must be illogical? This is probably getting a little philosophical. However if 3D is in fact real, and matter is therefore real, rather than holographic, then it seems likely to me that the presence of form has an influence, so that although form conforms to mathematical concepts, it is not solely defined by it. Therefore concepts such as a mathematical universe are to my mind only partially correct.
Until I get time to update my physics, I am going to leave my previous speculative post aside.