This is an article written by Astrophycisist Dr. Massimo Teodorani (a member of UAPSG-GEFAI) originally published on Facebook.
This structure would be well marked, according to calculations, in the early stages of the universe, and in particular in the very recent data obtained on the background radiation (Echo of the big bang), as if the singularity, which is the zero point was actually the point from which you Spreading the "Projection of reality" in 3-D, and not a point that swells as suddenly as a sphere (up to become extended 13.5 Light-years) has created physically to space, time, matter and energy. Similar considerations are also on the nature of black holes (another type of "Singularity" in physics and cosmology), whose entropy is proportional to its surface area (2-D) and therefore to its contents, in turn closely Tied to the volumes 3-D of the real world in that particular context, in reality projection of that surface 2-d containing information.
It seems to me that all this doesn't deny the reality observed and measured as such but that the interpreters according to a different key of reading, which would lead to the well "Holographic Paradigm", ready to replace that relativistic and quantum of the previous century. I understand that Skenderis, to get to these powerful conclusions is party, taking into consideration especially superstring theory, which unites the general relativity with quantum mechanics, and his characteristic of allow through the particles represented as thin wires ( Open or closed to second of the cases) the construction of hiper-superficies denominated "brane".
In A Nutshell The Holographic Theory (although no new since I'm at least 20 years that we are working, starting with, for example from the work of Leonard Susskind) in physics / cosmology is born as a necessity to combine better between their general relativity And quantum mechanics. Together with the construction of a theory of great unification of forces, this is the most compelling need for contemporary of physics, that doesn't allow contradictions within it but total auto consistency in all its parts, as far as counter-intuitive can be the result.
Skenderis tries to explain how the forces by which we may perceive, such as that of gravity, are nothing more than "emerging property" of something deeper, in the same way in which the temperature in a gas does not represent the law in itself but a Emergent property was born from a law that the cause and I mean the collision between particles.
The fact is that, as was the case with the theory of relativity (meter of Riemann, Ricci, etc. ) and for the Quantum Theory (spaces of Hilbert, etc. ), the holographic model requires the use of mathematical operators completely new to operate this theory (which considers Skenderis counterfeited, which is very encouraging). This math is present in their technical article (not available to non subscribers), but miss a disclosure "technique" that helps to understand all the other physical (of different specialties, like mine) as these new players explain the model and holographic How do you loops with the parameters are observable.
Having said that, I'd like to remind you that there is also another approach to try to verify (or disprove) if our universe is holographic or not, and this possible evidence could be experimentally and directly detected using interferometrical techniques with laser beams.
How did this a few years ago the physicist Silas Beane, there are in fact of potential observable in nature provided by muons (high energy particle) of cosmic radiation, which might prove that our universe is a colossal simulation, or a illusion in Which we'd all be immersed. If this is the reality we live in, wouldn't it be more real than dismissal of this facebook. But this is a hypothesis much more knives than Skenderis about holography forming as the origin of the universe, while that of Beane assumes openly that the universe is a real simulation verifiable (or wrong) by the comments and from laboratory experiments.
In This particular case the strategy used by experimental and theoretical physicists is to identify the "highest resolution" of the universe, or go to see which is the smallest pixel that it is. This can possibly find on my way to see what lies behind the "cut" of the energy (limit value of 10 ^ 20 electronvolt) of high-energy particles that are found in the cosmic rays. For ' limit value " of the energy of the cosmic rays to 10 ^ 20 electronvolt means a factor in the nature of space, that is, that identifies the nature of the pixel minimum which gives a very high resolution to this hypothetical simulation. The report of planck E = H x f says very simply that, without prejudice to the planck constant h, energy is much higher than the higher the frequency f. And the value given above is the highest possible. So this corresponds to a frequency f very high, but this is the same as having a wavelength l short (F = C / l), the shortest. In fact, the frequency is inversely proportional to the wavelength. But the wavelength is the size of a space. Well, that is the smallest pixels of the universe, at least according to this theory.
The experiment was done a year and a half ago using a "Olometro" from Fermilab in USA but has brought negative results, for now. The fact is that there is a community of physical and of famous manager of science and technology such as Elon Musk who believe that there is a need for more funds to be able to say the final word. If this definitive word came then the theory of "the matrix" would be true, our reality an illusion created by a computer technology for us inconceivable, while only the conscience would remain the only real reality.
• Skenderis Seminar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoP0lzBC9mo
• Interview to Beane: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628950.300-the-idea-we-live-in-a-simulation-isnt-science-fiction#.UzVOY6h5OSo
• Technical article of Beane et. At.: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.1847v2.pdf