Originally posted August 31, 2018

Updated September 22, 2018

In the spirit of polymath projects, this project presents a problem: how to understand the holographic nature of reality, along with a proposed approach to solving the problem, which is explained in “The Holomorphic Process, Understanding the holographic nature of reality as a metamorphic process” (currently under review by a peer-reviewed physics research journal) to the online community in the hope that others, will read, think about it and offer feedback. If the proposed model is correct, it greatly simplifies the math and provides a different perspective on the holographic principle.

The holographic approach (proposed by David Bohm) was applied to the thermodynamics of black holes by Leonard Suskind (see The World as a Hologram) and is a fairly new application to understanding quantum field theory (see Nassim Haramein’s “Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass” for example), but it is also applicable to many other branches of science, such as neuroscience (see Karl Pribram’s Holonomic Brain Theory), biology, information theory and the study of consciousness, as well as art and philosophy. So it is well suited for interdisciplinary collaborative efforts.

My approach to understanding and proving the holographic nature of physical reality uses a simple geometric, relational model that I developed (and am still developing) by reverse-engineering the problem. By that I mean I started with the assumption that every quantum particle is a holographic projection, a “photon sphere” or “orb” of energy if you will, and graphically analyzed it by separating energy into two *essentially equivalent* yet *perceptively different* quantifiable components (space and time). The concept is simple. Motion is the common experience, the conserved quantity, and

the space-time-motion diagram models the difference in perspectives that everyone experiences when they realize that an object, perceived to be at rest, is also in motion relative to some other moving reference frame. Both perspectives exist simultaneously and the only difference is not in their essence, but in our perspective.

The model, I call it the space-time-motion (STM) model, only requires an understanding of undergraduate-level algebra, a little geometry, basic calculus, vectors and phasors, a little imagination and a willingness to work with natural units (as does QFT). The key to the STM model is that it treats space and time as two different aspects of the same thing – motion. It illustrates that motion, a form of energy, presents in our perception as two equivalent yet different forms, as

1) a unit of energy referenced to its own rest frame, i.e. motion in space, that gives rise to angular momentum, and

2) as motion in time, i.e. a unit of energy referenced to some other motion – the standard unit of motion (the one used to define the standard clock).

Each of these forms is then separated into two perspectives:

1) from the inside looking out (mathematically represented as an expanding spherical wave) and

2) from the outside looking in (mathematically represented as an Euler exponential and thus a quantum wave function).

That’s four different perspectives that can all be represented in a single relational energy diagram (the representation of motion as the relationship between space and time). As a physical object, you can envision your body from all four perspectives. But you can only “see” three of them fully with your eyes. From the outside looking in, you can see the reflection of energy as your physical body. But you *experience* your “inner space”; you have “insight”.

The STM model treats one perspective, (from the inside-looking-out) as a vector in the linear (differentiated, relativistic) domain. It is a conformal *projection* – projected outward in space and time from its own center. The other perspective, (outside-looking-in) is treated as a phase vector (called a phasor, which is a simple spinor field) using a polar coordinate system in the frequency (integrated, quantum) domain. It is considered a *reflection* in the sense that it is the inverse of the projection and the zero-motion “event reference” point. The difference between the vector and the phasor is shown to be a magnification (characteristic of conformal projections) equal to the Lorentz factor. The reflection, represented by the circumference of a circle in the space-time plane, is the same energy as the projection and therefore a coherent wave, but scaled by a factor of 2pi (which is the linear measurement of a unit circle’s circumference, and Planck’s constant in natural units). So the functions that represent the two perspectives present as wave functions slightly shifted in phase. This is what creates the holographic effect; they appear to be different when in reality, they are the same.

To us, perception is reality, so when we perceive an object in motion relative to its background, we *see* it as a physical change in position and *experience* it as a metaphysical change in time. Without the background reference plane, we don’t see the physical change in position, yet we know that motion is ubiquitous so we *believe* that time is passing. In essence, we translate the concept of motion into a unit we call time. This is why many people say that time is an illusion. It’s not an illusion, it’s motion in disguise. (See The Nature of Time)

The STM model allows us to see this relationship from a “higher perspective.” By treating displacement in time exactly the same as displacement in space, it is clear that separation in perspectives creates the apparent rotation of the energy that we perceive as a particle (represented by a polar coordinate system). This rotation immediately changes the relationship between space and time (the ratio that is graphically shown as the slope of the phasor) until it is equal to the slope of the vector (which is what we *measure* as linear velocity, i.e. the ratio of displacement to time). The point at which these two ratios are equal is shown to be equal to the golden ratio. The event is a reintegration of the projection with the phase-shifted reflection, very similar to the process of holographic imaging, and is shown to produce a physical energy fringe (related to the fine structure coupling constant) in space. Considering this fringe as a “germ” of energy that serves as both the holographic source and a single quantum grating of the holographic fringe, physical matter can be understood in terms of a transformational, metamorphic process that transforms formless energy (perhaps dark energy) into quantum particles with mass and angular momentum.

I begin with the same model as the Minkowski space-time diagram, which separates (mathematically differentiates) motion into orthogonal dimensions of space and time. By graphically superimposing a polar coordinate system (frequency domain) over the linear (relativistic) domain, the result is the STM energy diagram that models the linear domain as a vector projection in space and time (with magnitude equal to the total energy Hamiltonian including the Lorentz magnification) and the frequency domain as a phasor with magnitude equal to the energy, E=hf, of a quantum particle (since frequency, f, is the inverse of time).

Several relevant equations have been “derived” from or illustrated by the STM model, including the ones mentioned above as well as, De Broglie and Compton wavelengths, the Schrodinger equation and the Klein-Gordon equation. In order to advance this model, several experts will be needed, especially physicists, mathematicians and engineers who understand the physics of holography, relativity and quantum mechanics, Quantum Field Theory – the equations associated with the standard model of particle physics, and the current theory of gravity (including Einstein’s field equations).

Some computer programming will also be very helpful to produce graphical “windows” representation of the two domains and illustrate how focusing on the relativistic domain has the effect of collapsing the quantum domain. For future applications of the model, experts in biological processes and information theory will be needed because the process of DNA and cell reproduction appear to be amplifications of the process (differentiation, projection, reflection, reintegration), and DNA molecules contain information that may also be explained as information entropy stored by the holomorphic process. One of the long-term, practical engineering goals of this research is to understand radioactive isotopes as holographic units that can be “tuned” and thereby transformed to their stable state, with applications to radioactive waste processing. This will require experts in nuclear and radiological physics and engineering.

As a medical physicist I can see the value in the holographic approach to medical imaging. But a better understanding of the holographic nature of matter can also lead to improved treatment techniques. My doctorate thesis was on the development of a geometrically-based method of stereotactic radiosurgery to treat brain tumors, and I can envision the use of holographic tuning to modulate the radiation beams in a way that will deposit radiation dose to tumor tissue more selectively than the current procedure, which uses a single-frequency, collimated beam that is rotated about an isocenter to build up dose to the tumor while spreading it out in healthy tissue.

Very interesting – we share similar views of reality as an interconnected whole (particles are an illusion). Please read the following pages on quaternions and the Euler equation (they need re-writing, maybe you can help, but give rise to the physical cause of spin and spherical rotation due to intersecting orthogonal plane waves 90 degrees out of phase).

https://www.spaceandmotion.com/euler-equation.htm

https://www.spaceandmotion.com/physics-quaternion-complex-plane-wave-equation.htm

Cheers.

Geoff Haselhurst

LikeLiked by 1 person

Thanks Geoff. I’ll check it out.

LikeLike

One of the problems with science, especially mathematical physics, is that specialists develop their own very specialized language. So even if you know the answer, before you can offer your insights to help solve problems, you may have to learn the language. Unfortunately, some very wise people who have brilliant insights, don’t have the best language skills. And the older you get, the harder it is to learn a new language.

I believe that, especially in the case of non-scientists wanting to communicate with scientists, one often remains silent because the language itself is too hard to learn. But more importantly, the language, especially math, is based on certain assumptions and definitions that preordain the meaning of the very thing that we are trying to understand. So it is easy for specialists to get trapped in an intellectual snare, especially if they don’t respect those who try to communicate a new approach to something that they have worked on their entire adult career. If you (the non-specialists) don’t speak their language, you obviously don’t understand the complexities that they have worked so hard to understand and remember, so it is easy for them to make you feel ignorant. You may be told to go read everything on the subject and only reference professional journal articles, since they are peer-reviewed and considered to be authoritative. But these are often expensive and unreadable to those who are not already fluent in the language.

LikeLike