Cosmology Intelligent Design Physics

Suzan Mazur talks with Fermilab associate Craig Hogan at Oscillations about the current state of the hologram universe

Spread the love
craig-hogan-drone
Craig James Hogan

And we learn some other things as well. From Suzan Mazur at Oscillations, an interview with Craig James Hogan, affiliated with Fermilab:

Suzan Mazur: Thank you. There is criticism that the holographic investigation has been going on for almost 20 years, kicked off by Juan Maldacena and that there’s very little evidence so far, despite the bold headlines. That at some point in scientific investigations if the data doesn’t correlate with the experiment as modeled, it’s time to move on.

I gather you don’t share that perspective. You’ve said you’re only at the beginning of the investigation. Do you see this as an emerging field like origin of life, spawning an increasing number of virtual research hubs in various parts of the world?

Craig Hogan: That’s very interesting. It’s true this holographic idea has been around even before Maldacena. The basic idea goes back to the 1970s and black hole entropy and Stephen Hawking. But it’s not fair to say that it’s time to give up because there are very few experiments, and our experiment is the only one of its kind. It’s not like there’s a worldwide program of experiments testing this stuff. I think you have to try to look for it before you give up. We haven’t really been looking that long. We have a small team working on this for less than 10 years. I think you should give us a little bit of time to look for it.

If it isn’t there, we’ll know that within a year or two. And we’ll move on. Then maybe somebody else will try again. More.

Sounds to some of us like: The dream never dies. Okay, dream big then…

Note: One learns a great deal from Mazur’s Oscillations blog about the cosmology names we only read about. Here’s one: Leonard Susskind

…a co-inventor of the holographic principle, threatened to slit his own throat if Hogan found holographic noise. Susskind once threatened me saying that if I ever published the transcript of our 20-minute taped telephone conversation he agreed to, in which he said that everything he knew about evolution he learned from reading Richard Dawkins’ book and then proceeded to describe two other giants of biology as nut cases, that he would—. He never finished the sentence, never said specifically what he’d do if I published it. Ironically, another leading theoretical physicist I interviewed told me he based part of his cosmology theory on the thinking of one of the biologists Susskind trashed in the interview.

Just a thought, reading that quoted paragraph above: Might science writers benefit from a hashtag: #NotUsToo – because we actually don’t put up with threats, etc.?

On the other hand, in my experience (of which old people often have a lot), once we have established the fact that we won’t cover for unprofessional stuff, we probably don’t need the hashtag. The younger folk have more fun with Twitter meltdowns than older hacks would anyhow. – O’Leary for News

See also: Astrophysicist Niayesh Afshordi explains the holograph universe to Suzan Mazur at Oscillations

2 Replies to “Suzan Mazur talks with Fermilab associate Craig Hogan at Oscillations about the current state of the hologram universe

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “Ironically, another leading theoretical physicist I interviewed told me he based part of his cosmology theory on the thinking of one of the biologists Susskind trashed in the interview.”

    LOL 🙂 No wonder so much of modern day cosmology is losing so much of the respect that it once had just a few short decades ago.

    Today so much of pop-sci cosmology sounds like “Alice in Wonderland” fantasy rather than anything resembling hard hitting science.

    i.e. Multiverse, infinite parallel universes, bubble universes, hologram universes, etc.. etc.. etc..

    Perhaps cosmologists and Darwinists should (re-learn) to stick to the empirical evidence instead of to their (apparently) beer fueled speculations.

    And whereas atheists have no compelling evidence for all the various parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth. In fact, as is shown in the following video, there is fairly strong evidence that can be mustered against their claims for parallel universes and/or multiverses,,

    Multiverse Mania vs Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQJV4fH6kMo

    ,, And whereas atheists have no compelling evidence for all the various parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth, Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to the higher dimensional mathematics behind Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension.

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

    Perhaps modern day scientists should also learn to stick with the worldview that brought us to the dance of modern science in the first place? i.e. Christian Theism? ,,,

    The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010
    Excerpt: …as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos),,,
    Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pa(n)theist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,,
    If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.
    http://www.scifiwright.com/201.....revisited/

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  2. 2
    DATCG says:

    That’s no fun BA77 😉

    You must have more imagination! But just not to much so that it leads to a creator of the universe 😉 Your imagination can only lead you to blind, unguided events that pooofed life into everything we see today.

    LOL ???? No wonder so much of modern day cosmology is losing so much of the respect that it once had just a few short decades ago.

    Today so much of pop-sci cosmology sounds like “Alice in Wonderland” fantasy rather than anything resembling hard hitting science.

    i.e. Multiverse, infinite parallel universes, bubble universes, hologram universes, etc.. etc.. etc..

Leave a Reply