Monday, February 16, 2015

The Holographic Universe


The Holographic Universe
Does Objective Reality Exist?

By Michael Talbot
In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.
Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.
Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.
University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.
To understand why Bohm makes this startling assertion, one must first understand a little about holograms. A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser.
To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film.
When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.
The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.
Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.
The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order. For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts.
A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.
This insight suggested to Bohm another way of understanding Aspect's discovery. Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.
To enable people to better visualize what he means, Bohm offers the following illustration.
Imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side.
As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them.
When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.
This, says Bohm, is precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles in Aspect's experiment.
According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality.
Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram.
In addition to its phantomlike nature, such a universe would possess other rather startling features. If the apparent separateness of subatomic particles is illusory, it means that at a deeper level of reality all things in the universe are infinitely interconnected.
The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky.
Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide, the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web.
In a holographic universe, even time and space could no longer be viewed as fundamentals. Because concepts such as location break down in a universe in which nothing is truly separate from anything else, time and three-dimensional space, like the images of the fish on the TV monitors, would also have to be viewed as projections of this deeper order.
At its deeper level reality is a sort of superhologram in which the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. This suggests that given the proper tools it might even be possible to someday reach into the superholographic level of reality and pluck out scenes from the long-forgotten past.
What else the superhologram contains is an open-ended question. Allowing, for the sake of argument, that the superhologram is the matrix that has given birth to everything in our universe, at the very least it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be -- every configuration of matter and energy that is possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from blue whales to gamma rays. It must be seen as a sort of cosmic storehouse of "All That Is."
Although Bohm concedes that we have no way of knowing what else might lie hidden in the superhologram, he does venture to say that we have no reason to assume it does not contain more. Or as he puts it, perhaps the superholographic level of reality is a "mere stage" beyond which lies "an infinity of further development".
Bohm is not the only researcher who has found evidence that the universe is a hologram. Working independently in the field of brain research, Standford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram has also become persuaded of the holographic nature of reality.
Pribram was drawn to the holographic model by the puzzle of how and where memories are stored in the brain. For decades numerous studies have shown that rather than being confined to a specific location, memories are dispersed throughout the brain.
In a series of landmark experiments in the 1920s, brain scientist Karl Lashley found that no matter what portion of a rat's brain he removed he was unable to eradicate its memory of how to perform complex tasks it had learned prior to surgery. The only problem was that no one was able to come up with a mechanism that might explain this curious "whole in every part" nature of memory storage.
Then in the 1960s Pribram encountered the concept of holography and realized he had found the explanation brain scientists had been looking for. Pribram believes memories are encoded not in neurons, or small groupings of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that crisscross the entire brain in the same way that patterns of laser light interference crisscross the entire area of a piece of film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes the brain is itself a hologram.
Pribram's theory also explains how the human brain can store so many memories in so little space. It has been estimated that the human brain has the capacity to memorize something on the order of 10 billion bits of information during the average human lifetime (or roughly the same amount of information contained in five sets of the Encyclopaedia Britannica).
Similarly, it has been discovered that in addition to their other capabilities, holograms possess an astounding capacity for information storage--simply by changing the angle at which the two lasers strike a piece of photographic film, it is possible to record many different images on the same surface. It has been demonstrated that one cubic centimeter of film can hold as many as 10 billion bits of information.
Our uncanny ability to quickly retrieve whatever information we need from the enormous store of our memories becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If a friend asks you to tell him what comes to mind when he says the word "zebra", you do not have to clumsily sort back through some gigantic and cerebral alphabetic file to arrive at an answer. Instead, associations like "striped", "horselike", and "animal native to Africa" all pop into your head instantly.
Indeed, one of the most amazing things about the human thinking process is that every piece of information seems instantly cross- correlated with every other piece of information--another feature intrinsic to the hologram. Because every portion of a hologram is infinitely interconnected with ever other portion, it is perhaps nature's supreme example of a cross-correlated system.
The storage of memory is not the only neurophysiological puzzle that becomes more tractable in light of Pribram's holographic model of the brain. Another is how the brain is able to translate the avalanche of frequencies it receives via the senses (light frequencies, sound frequencies, and so on) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Encoding and decoding frequencies is precisely what a hologram does best. Just as a hologram functions as a sort of lens, a translating device able to convert an apparently meaningless blur of frequencies into a coherent image, Pribram believes the brain also comprises a lens and uses holographic principles to mathematically convert the frequencies it receives through the senses into the inner world of our perceptions.
An impressive body of evidence suggests that the brain uses holographic principles to perform its operations. Pribram's theory, in fact, has gained increasing support among neurophysiologists.
Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently extended the holographic model into the world of acoustic phenomena. Puzzled by the fact that humans can locate the source of sounds without moving their heads, even if they only possess hearing in one ear, Zucarelli discovered that holographic principles can explain this ability.
Zucarelli has also developed the technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism.
Pribram's belief that our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support.
It has been found that each of our senses is sensitive to a much broader range of frequencies than was previously suspected.
Researchers have discovered, for instance, that our visual systems are sensitive to sound frequencies, that our sense of smell is in part dependent on what are now called "cosmic frequencies", and that even the cells in our bodies are sensitive to a broad range of frequencies. Such findings suggest that it is only in the holographic domain of consciousness that such frequencies are sorted out and divided up into conventional perceptions.
But the most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram's holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm's theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is "there" is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality?
Put quite simply, it ceases to exist. As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is Maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion.
We are really "receivers" floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmogrify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the superhologram.
This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm and Pribram's views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm, and although many scientists have greeted it with skepticism, it has galvanized others. A small but growing group of researchers believe it may be the most accurate model of reality science has arrived at thus far. More than that, some believe it may solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature.
Numerous researchers, including Bohm and Pribram, have noted that many para-psychological phenomena become much more understandable in terms of the holographic paradigm.
In a universe in which individual brains are actually indivisible portions of the greater hologram and everything is infinitely interconnected, telepathy may merely be the accessing of the holographic level.
It is obviously much easier to understand how information can travel from the mind of individual 'A' to that of individual 'B' at a far distance point and helps to understand a number of unsolved puzzles in psychology. In particular, Grof feels the holographic paradigm offers a model for understanding many of the baffling phenomena experienced by individuals during altered states of consciousness.


  1. meh. :-)
    Wanna hear my "salt shaker" rebuttal?

    1. Oh, haha. That was the rebuttal, right?

      (I'm slow)


    2. No, no; there's a real one. I've been traveling, and it's cold! I'll get it done here today. After my nap. :-)

  2. Ok. So; there's this salt shaker, on the table in front of you. :-)

    Just a plain, very simple salt shaker; like the ones on 90% of diner tables in North America; about 2 inches tall; glass, with a stainless steel screw on cap, about half full of salt, sodium chloride. Very inexpensive; the stainless steel is so inexpensive it's not quite stainless; the salt has corroded it just a bit, leaving the edges of the cap a little bit rusty.

    I contend this salt shaker is proof of "objective reality", and a rebuttal of the various versions of "reality is a myth" ideas. On the very, very contrary; our world is built on objective, repeatable, reality. In the "holographic" universe; there is a non-zero chance that the salt shaker; and your house, car, fridge, dinner, friends, etc - will suddenly "wink out"; and go live in a different universe. But- they don't. Ever, really.

    Besides being a nice hard objective object, known to all; which you could throw though your window, and reliably bust the window with - the salt shaker has several other objet lessons. (humor). You - probably not a glass worker - could make one, if you wanted to badly enough. Using reliable instructions from previous fabricators - which will, unquestionably - work. In fact, you pretty certainly already know most of how to make a glass/steel salt shaker; you know much of the science and technology behind it; what is lacking is only precise details. Which you could look up, or have some one teach you - and you - could - make one.

    You know glass is made from sand, a lot of heat, some other stuff; and the shaker is blown into a mold to make it take that shape. You know the stainless steel is made by smelting iron ore, adding some carbon and probably chromium, or nickel, or a couple other things- and you probably know that shaker top is formed by spinning a hot steel disk, and working it into that shape while it spins. Then the holes are punched.

    If you really wanted to make one- building on what you already know- it would take you anywhere from a week to make the shaker, if you had a good teacher, and didn't start from sand and iron ore (that might take a year).

    100% of that - relies on a universe that is not flipping in and out of existence. Much of the universe is knowable - teachable - and as steady as a rock. It was just like this 500 years ago- and all the years between- and there is NO indication it will be different tomorrow. None.

    It's the evidence. We're surrounded by evidence that the world is knowable, and stable. The idea that it ISN'T - is based almost entirely on the arrogance of people who say "I don't understand X; therefore, X cannot be understood."

    Um, what? History is littered with things we did not understand, that were totally baffling - but- which we learned to understand. The converse; where things we understood suddenly became incomprehensible - has never happened.

    It's both amusing; and alarming; that the "I don't understand, therefore it cannot be understood" schtick is so predictable and durable; across all disciplines of study. It crops up repeatedly, medicine being a stellar field for examples; but physics and psychology contributing plenty. Physicians suffer from "Physics-Envy", and therefore often out-Herod Herod in their "scientific rigor" - despite the clear history that they are so often wrong.

    :-) It's an area of active concern to me- young people are being taught that the "real" world is unknowable - and it's deadly dangerous; generating hopelessness.

    Ok, I better stop! I'd love to hear your reactions and thoughts.

  3. My blog just deleted my response! lol

  4. There we go (apparently Google disagreed with me...).

    Anyway, I get how the last few 'New Age' paragraphs would inflame your scientific sensibilities (totally LOL, but in the interest of full transparency I did not edit the article!). BUT!!! Having established the unassailable fact that all things New Age are total BS, let's just entertain the idea that there may indeed be an observable holographic aspect to the universe (as opposed to the universe BEING a holograph).
    Why couldn't that be? While I DO believe that everything is 'knowable', it may not be known by us (geez, what I wouldn't give for some freaking italics... ).

    I should also add (to reveal my bias) that I totally lost interest in Northern Lights when I found out they were only the result of a coronal mass ejection colliding with the magnetic field of earth. Because poetry.


    1. "Why couldn't that be?"

      Oh, it could- but - A serious fight I have with multiple people calling themselves scientists is regarding the value of speculation. Many alleged scientists scorn it; thereby demonstrating they have no concept of the realities and history of science. ALL science starts with speculation- which is then supposed to lead to testable hypotheses. I speculate freely. BUT - I want a TINY little fact somewhere, to hang the speculation on. :-)

      I really don't see any "facts" in the ideas of a holographic universe; rather, only "I know what a holograph is; and the universe hasn't said it isn't one; therefore..." Therefore nothing, really. The universe has also not proven it isn't a watermelon. This stuff; from the article; "Pribram's belief that our brains mathematically construct "hard" reality by relying on input from a frequency domain has also received a good deal of experimental support." - is pure, pure, bs. What they cite as "support" - isn't support at all; it is merely "not not a watermelon" evidence.

      "While I DO believe that everything is 'knowable', it may not be known by us "

      Fer sure! Every source of "wisdom" we have; from Ecclesiastes to Grimm to Lao Tze says exactly the same thing; "the more knowledge one has, the more one sees the vast extent of what we do NOT know". Totally true.

      (geez, what I wouldn't give for some freaking italics... ). lol I'm so ancient I was using email before the www existed- and plain text was IT. Ergo- the all-caps substitute

      "I should also add (to reveal my bias) that I totally lost interest in Northern Lights when I found out they were only the result of a coronal mass ejection colliding with the magnetic field of earth. Because poetry."

      WHAT!? I'm horrified!! Reality does NOT conflict with poetry!! I'm aghast!!

      :-) To reveal MY bias- I had exactly that conversation in poetry writing class i college; where I was nearly the only science major. Somebody submitted a poem describing, perhaps sarcastically, how beautiful dead jellyfish and empty crabshells on the beach where. I was given the job of reading/interpreting/critiquing; and was going with "ok, icky, but yeah, there's beauty here too" - only to be interrupted by the author, who scornfully informed us that she really DID think it was icky/ugly, and was making fun of those who saw beauty here..... boy, did that kick off a long discussion. :-) I stuck to to my "is too." and she stuck to "is not".

      Is too! :-)

      Try this- when you next see an aurora- expand its reality both backwards, and forwards, in time. Our many ancestors saw these lights in a hundred fantastical and fascinating ways. Every story they told shows us bits of their humanity; precious to me. And forward? Sure, we know a little about them now- but I'll guarantee there is a ton more to learn; all of it - illuminating.


    2. Oh Greenpa, how I love your brain! :)

      So, the Northern Lights. Yes, yes, yes to all of it (ancestors etc.), but it goes in a different direction for me. I get this magnificent, trembling weakness when I'm lucky enough to see a starry sky (rare for an LA resident). I find a raw, jagged (poetic) comfort in the absolute, blinding boundless expanse that is beyond my grasp. I feel more HUMAN in the face of it. I love that the hominids I share this rock with do not know all the secrets of the universe we inhabit and I sometimes quite enjoy feeling like a simple cricket in the face of all this cosmic majesty- or like a Neanderthal waiting for magnetic midnight to fill the sky with wonder. Aurora borealis was my secret voodoo until I understood the science behind it.

      Now it looks like cosmic skid marks to me.


    3. (which is cool, but so not voodoo!)

    4. :-) I totally love "cosmic skid marks". Which are not voodoo, indeed, but fabulously mysterious!! How big was this thing that was skidding? Where was it going? What started the skid? Did it try to brake; or was it just sliding? oh, and on! And right out of our sight and understanding, so fast.

      Hey, it's the new Hit TV show! "CosmicCSI"; or CSMI, for "cosmic skid marks investigation" You can start with one hard factoid- and show how, in every direction leading away - we're clueless; pitch black vacuum. deGrasse Tyson would love it. Maybe. :-)

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Replies
    1. Not sure if that was for me but xoxoxo right back to you.
      (I had to add an extra kiss and hug because of my OCD ;)

  7. Replies
    1. Just saw this today - it made me very happy :) Was thinking of you 'cause your bday's coming up and I always think of you on your bday. I don't know how to email you privately but you can email me, if you want, at and then I can write you back. xoxoxo