Is the Universe a

how many times are you going to lie about this fc.
I do not twist anything. I quote scientists, present papers and videos to support what I say.
its only twisted if you are too ignorant to understand how finely tuned some of the constants in the standard model are.

you and stu have been trying to pin me with your lie for years.
my response has always been... my argument about fine tuning is stated below.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2cT4zZIHR3s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

No he doesn't. The Koch bros say so.

 

your typical response to science.

 

Can someone post a YouTube video showing what Susskind says on this issue?

 

Here's one
It's a bit long but it's interesting as Susskind presents in the form of analogy and metaphor.

You need skip to 40.50 to get onto the hologram analogy being used in science and of course by Susskind , not to mean the universe is an actual hologram, but as he indicates, a representation of the mathematics.

At around 48:40 Susskind also uses a fish analogy , "another fishy story"
so you may need keep this in mind ....

 

Good post stu. That clears up the hologram thing for me a bit. But if it's a hologram then it must be from a computer and computers are designed and if they are designed then there must be designer and he must be God. That's all jem was trying to say .

One of these days I must dive back into this quantum stuff and get it more clearly in my head. One thing I still don't get is how merely the act of observing changes the state. I don't have problem with the entanglement principle, but idea that merely looking at something changes it bugs me.

 

I was not trying to say anything as I have no preference for digital over analog. I was just linking to info. (for instance I prefer digital video but I prefer analog music recordings. As far as photos I do not have enough experience with the high end to have a preference.)

 

The way I understand it is, the mathematics of this view of the universe resembles the mathematics of holograms. If you don't understand the mathematics, you cannot understand how the universe is a hologram but not actually a hologram. ; )

 

Thanks fc.
In regard to quantum entanglement ie particles that are said to be correlated with each other, they require some form of light to be observed. That's basically the problem. As soon as you observe them the light you need interferes with their quantum state. As Susskind says in the video, it is one of the frustrating things about quantum mechanics. The thing you need to observe the thing you want to observe, will effect the thing you want to observe.
Fortunately quantum mechanics is proven. Essentially with mathematics that predict observed outcomes rather than direct observation of the process

 

I think that's a good way to put it. Still, for all the math, holographic cosmology is not part of mainstrean physics.