Is The Universe A Hologram?

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments
Captions
[INTRO MUSIC] What if I told you were a hologram? Or maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. In my quest to become better acquainted with reality, I decided to get the perspective of someone who devoted their life to discovering the true nature of the universe. Leonard Susskind is one of the founders of string theory and Scientific America's bad boy of physics. I'm a professor of physics at Stanford University. And I think about physics. CRAIG: Like many physicists, Susskind spends his days trying to understand how the universe works. But physicists don't always agree. And about 40 years ago, a major battle began in the physics community that lasted for decades. And winning the battle required rethinking the very nature of reality CRAIG: There are two prevailing theories, the theory of relativity and then quantum mechanics, that seem to be at odds with each other. Well, Yeah, they do seem to be at odds with each other, and always had from the get go. But they can't be at odds with each other, because they're both true. We've got to make them fit. We've got to make them fit together. CRAIG: So in 1915, Albert Einstein published his general relativity theory, which explains how gravity and space-time work. And quantum mechanics was developed a few years later by these people. LEONARD SUSSKIND: You know, quantum mechanics is about very, very small and light things which are so delicate that any way that you touch them or any way that you observe them, they change. Relativity is about gravity. Gravity is about very heavy objects. MATT: So relativity is great at explaining the motions of big things, like stars and planets, but not so good at tiny things, like particles. CRAIG: Yes. And physicists are always on the lookout for one theory that explains everything. But in the day to day life of a cosmologist or a particle physicist, you're usually dealing with very big things or very small things. So for the time being two theories was OK. That is, until a young physicist who was studying black holes had a brilliant idea that screwed everything up. LEONARD SUSSKIND: Stephen Hawking put his finger on a very important, what's called a paradox. A paradox means something which apparently looks contradictory. What he recognized is that things that fall into a black hole are lost completely. They're lost, and they can never come out. On the other hand, quantum mechanics says, and this is one of its very, very basic ingredients, that nothing can ever really be lost. Information, the distinctions between things, can't really be lost. But what does he mean by information? I mean, I lose information all the time. I can't remember where I parked my car, my dog ate my book report. That's a little different. When Susskind talks about information, he's referring to the distinctions between the fundamental particles that make up the atoms in our bodies and the rest of the universe. For instance, I could take this book and burn it. Hey, I'm not finished with that. I'm not going to burn it. But if I did, you wouldn't be able to read it, because it would be a pile of ash and smoke. However, from a physics perspective, the atoms that make up the paper and ink in the letters and the tragic love story would still be there and could, theoretically, be recombined if we had the right tools. In fact, I think of it as more basic than any of the other principles of physics. The most basic principle of physics is that distinctions never disappear. Now, take that same book, toss it in a black hole, and you've got yourself a problem. According to Hawking, all that information is irretrievably lost. Why is that, exactly? Well, it has something to do with what Hawking discovered about black holes. Well, maybe we should explain what a black hole is first. Go for it. A black hole is a region of space composed of super densely packed matter. Because of it's mind-boggling density, it's pull of gravity is so strong that nearby planets and stars can get sucked in. And nothing, not even light, can escape once it's gone beyond the black hole's event horizon. So it's a point of no return, in a sense. It's a point of no return in which when anything falls through it, it simply cannot get out, because in a sense space is moving inward at faster than the speed of light. So in 1974. Stephen Hawking basically said that all matter and information that goes into a black hole is lost forever. And I guess Susskind wasn't too happy about this. No way. He actually wrote a book about it. The Black Hole War, My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics. Yeah. Right. Could you describe this battle, and why it was a war you felt it was necessary to fight? Well, as I said, Stephen was basically a gravity physicist, a general relativist. And he believed in the principles of general relativity. Nothing else mattered. I was always a quantum physicist. And when Stephen said that it looks like black holes, because they lose information into them, violate the principles of quantum mechanics, I and a couple of my friends, in particular a physicist by the name of Gerard 't Hooft, a very famous Dutch physicist, said, no, that can't be right. And we didn't know why he was wrong, but we knew he was wrong. He held his ground. We held our ground. But eventually, we began to make sense of in what way Hawking was wrong. It's a basic principle of the way we think of classical physics, that a thing can only be in one place. If it's here, it's not there. If it's there, it's not here. What was going on is that, in some funny sense, quantum mechanics was requiring that it could be in the sense in two places at the same time. What? How is that even possible? Yeah, what's he talking about? We begin to get the idea, in particular, 't Hooft and myself, that what was going on on the horizon of a black hole was similar to a hologram. That the surface of the black hole, the horizon of the black hole, was like a photographic film. And what fell into the black hole was like the image created, a three-dimensional image created. CRAIG: So their idea was that any matter that falls into a black hole remains trapped inside. But at the same time, an exact copy is perfectly preserved on the horizon. This by itself was a revolutionary idea. But Susskind and his crew soon realized that the holographic principle doesn't necessarily only apply to black holes. Once we understood that what was inside falling into the black hole, inside the black hole, was a kind of projection of the horizon, we began to understand the idea was more general, that the entire three dimensionality of space is a projection of a very distant horizon that surrounds us. And not the horizon of a black hole, it's the horizon of the universe. And instead of being on the outside of it, like we would be if there was a black hole here, we were on the inside of it. And so you could say that we on the inside of it are a projection of this film-like thing that's on the boundary of the universe. So while we stand here in The Good Stuff studio, and while you watch this video at home, or at work, or in prison awaiting trial, whatever you're doing, we are actually projections of equivalent versions of ourselves that live on the outer surface of the universe. Whatever happens here, happens there, and vice versa and vice universa. So I'm a hologram? This isn't real? Oh my god. Is the real me just a battery that's powering a universe-wide simulation? No, Matt, you're not in the Matrix. There is no spoon. It's just that you're here, and you're sort of over there as well. Well, if we're here and also there, are we the projection, or is the outer surface the projection? Which one's reality? Are we on the inside of the universe, or have we actually been in the outer surface this whole time? That's your choice. You decide. But the mathematics says they're equivalent. I feel like I'm here Yeah, but so does your image on the boundary. It's also saying, I feel like I'm here. Oh, man. Right, right. But the mathematics doesn't care which way you think about it. It says there's an equivalence. That's about all we can say. Physicists do not like the word reality. We may talk about it all the time. But when it comes down to it, we really don't want to say this is reality and that's not reality. There are mathematical connections between things. And that's got to be it, because we don't have insight enough to be able to tell which is reality. That's pretty wild. It is pretty wild. And not surprisingly, the idea of the holographic principle was initially met with a bit of skepticism. This was a wild idea at first. Nobody really accepted it. I think for the most part the reaction of our colleagues were, those guys used to be smart guys. I think they've lost their marbles. The world is a hologram? That's too crazy. Eventually, the idea got put into a very, very precise form by a young Argentinian physicist by the name of Juan Maldecena. Juan Maldecena is now one of the great physicists of the world, maybe the greatest physicist of the world. It's now gone from being a wild-eyed conjecture to being an every-day working tool of physics. After Juan Maldecena's mathematical realization of the holographic principle, Hawking conceded defeat. He admitted that he was wrong about information being lost in a black hole, calling it his biggest blunder in science. So how does Susskind feel about Hawking after he admitted he was wrong? All of these ideas were put in place as a response to a very, very deep question Stephen Hawking asked. He was incredibly perceptive to see that there was this tension there. And all of the ideas of modern physics that are exciting all of us now trace right back to his question. So to say he was just wrong is a pale reflection of what really happened. So does Stephen Hawking now fully support the holographic principle? As far as I can tell he supports these ideas. But that's kind of irrelevant, because the rest of the physics community does. You know, we get old. Steven gets old. I get old. At some point it doesn't matter what he or I think. OK, so the physics community generally accepts this is a plausible theory. That's all well and good, Craig. But how can something so insane-sounding be true? Well, maybe you just don't understand it. I don't understand it. Well, why is this stuff so hard to understand? When people ask me about these things, I always give the same answer. Our neural wiring, the thing that we inherited from our ancestors, and I don't mean our ancestors our grandparents, I mean, you know, the worms in the muck. Through evolution, the neural wiring that we inherited was not built for quantum mechanics. It was not built for higher dimensions. It was not built for thinking about curved space-time. It was built for classical physics. It was built for rocks and stones and all the ordinary objects. And it was built for three dimensional space. And that's not quite good enough for us to be able to visualize and internalize the ideas of quantum mechanics and general relativity and so forth. So instead, what do we do? We use mathematics. Eventually, in time we develop intuitions out of the abstract mathematics. We get better at it. And we begin to think that way. But that can be extremely frustrating when trying to explain to the outside world. The outside world by and large has not had that experience of going through the rewiring process of converting their minds into something that can deal with 5 dimensions, 10 dimensions, or the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle, or whatever it happens to be. And so the best we can do is to use analogies, metaphors. And the holographic principle is a metaphor. The way I've described it in terms of a hologram is not precise. It's not exactly accurate. It's close. It captures some of the ideas. But there is a whole raft of mathematics behind it that I can't easily transfer to you. Yeah. I should've paid more attention in math class. Well, it wouldn't have been enough. Yeah. I know what you mean. Like, even learning about relativity, just learning about how time works and how time is a dimension, it took me a while to fully grasp. No, you would get it. You would get it if you took a couple years. I mean, I don't know what your level of mathematics is, but-- I was good in high school. That's good enough. If you were good in mathematics in high school, then within a year or two of effort these ideas could be conveyed. Yeah. But to do so in my living room here in an hour, all we can do is try to use metaphors and analogies. Right. So it's possible that after a few years of rigorous mathematical training, we could potentially understand these principles. Still, Susskind admits that not everyone will be able to understand, or even want to. And that's OK. In my experience there's a lot of people out there who understand that they can't understand it, and are very glad that somebody can. There's also people who are very resentful. They're resentful. They think there is a conspiracy, a conspiracy that the priesthood of science is hiding something. Can you tell them no? Can you tell them? No, no, no. We're not hiding anything. We want more than anything else that people should listen to us, and understand what we're saying. But we're stuck with this obstacle of mathematics. So if you want to understand the universe beyond the basic stuff that we can see and touch, you gotta learn the math. Right. But it's also OK if you don't know the math, because there are people out there who have devoted their lives and years of research to understanding this stuff. And they're doing a pretty good job. Science is a constantly evolving field. But there is plenty that they do know. And they're getting better and better at making predictions. So what did Susskind think is in store for the future of physics and our understanding of the universe? Yeah, I think this holographic idea is permanent in the vocabulary of physicists. It's in the textbooks. It's going to stay in the textbooks. But how the whole story is going to play out, the universe, how quantum mechanics fits together with gravity and so forth, I think there's only one thing that's certain, that there will be surprises. Some of them will come from experiments. Some of them will come from giant telescopes. And some of them will come from mathematical and theoretical thinking about how things fit together. And I think one can be pretty sure that anybody who thinks that they have the final answer now is smokin' something bad. Or maybe they should be smoking something better. Ha-ha-ha. Don't do drugs, kids. But I think there's every reason to believe that the future will hold surprises. So for me to sit here and to predict how physics will evolve in the next century or so is a total waste of time, because I'll be wrong. Good answer. So there's still a lot to be discovered. But there's no way to know how our understanding of the universe is going to change in the future. And, as we've learned throughout the episode, it's hard to even know what's happening right now. So what are we supposed to do? Well, I guess we just have to trust that there are people out there who are diligently working to figure out how our world works, where we come from, and where we're going. And at the same time, we have to be a little cautious dealing with people who claim to have all the answers. Great summation, Craig. Thank you. Pretty nice day out. Want to go outside and throw the football around? That's some classical physics I can wrap my head around. Let's go buddy. Hey, guys, wait for me. Thanks for watching our Seeing Isn't Believing playlist. If you, or the other you on the outer surface of the universe, liked this video, consider clicking Like down there. And if you want to be notified when our next video comes out, subscribe. And if you'd like to support our show and keep it going, visit our patreon page, and you can get a cool perk. Go long, Craig! Longer. Even longer. Don't stop. It's going to be a bomber. [MUSIC PLAYING]
Info
Channel: The Good Stuff
Views: 541,477
Rating: undefined out of 5
Keywords: is the universe a hologram?, string theory, is reality an illusion, holographic universe, hologram, black holes, black hole war, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind (Academic), Universe (Quotation Subject), Physics (Field Of Study), wheezywaiter, Craig Benzine, The Good Stuff, vsauce, it's okay to be smart, Joe Hanson (Person), PBS Digital Studios, science, education, physics, universe, quantum, quantum physics, youtube
Id: iNgIl-qIklU
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 16min 0sec (960 seconds)
Published: Tue Aug 04 2015
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.