New evidence that our universe is a hologram

[Hussein]

Again, I was not talking about extra-dimension theories. The subject was other universes.

You are splitting hairs. If the extra dimensions are inside our own universe (tiny dimensions), it wouldn't support other universes, but if the dimensions are large, it means we are a bubble inside a bigger universe (brane theories), so at least one more universe.

@Free already mentioned the 5D black hole theory which deviates from standard big bang by 4%, he linked a newer version of the theory which is probably doing better. There are more, like this one.

As I said, the available data can be interpreted in a way to suggest we are a floating bubble in a higher-dimensional universe (brane cosmology). These theories ARE competitive to the standard big bang, they cannot be dismissed. 

If they exist, there may be entirely different ways they are seen or inferred,

Good that you are acknowledging it, we infer things from observations. Some people infer we are a bubble in a bigger universe from weird observations, such as the accelerating expansion of the universe, standard big bang fixes it by adding dark things, but that's just one approach. 

Until they (other universes) are known evidentially, they are not known yet. 

We don't have to see them to know them. Other universes are already being inferred from current observations. Those theories ARE competitive to standard big bang. 

We can be 100 % certain that today

Dude, are you too blessed with faith?   "100%" is exclusive to faith-based epistemology.

they are not known YET. 

Knowledge is probabilistic. The probabilistic knowledge of other universes is considerable and competitive to the standard big bang.

A bunch of possible theories about how we may come to know something, are not the same as knowing something.

They are not "about how we may come to know something", they say our CURRENT observation can be explained by our universe being a bubble in a super-universe. Adding a dark matter and dark energy has been very effective, but it is not the only way to describe what we see.

I do not advocate anything. I agree the standard big bang is the established theory. I'm arguing your confidence that other alternatives can be dismissed is not warranted, unless, you are blessed with faith. 

[Free]

It most certainly does.

... he said with no explanation. Dismissed. Arm Chair Cosmologist doesn't get to assert anything without a reference. 
You have no clue what an "initial state" was. 

You don't know what was at high density and high temperature" or what it came from or what it even was. 
There is no reason to slap on the label "initial state" when you don't know that, and in fact there could have been countless phases before what banged.  Maybe you should look up the word "initial". 

It's funny, you buy all the wrong assumptions about the Big Bang that theists make with it. Hmmmm ?

The very word "initial" implies an origin of existence. It implies the beginning, the first; the origin of everything else. 

Unless you've got some other definition tucked away in your decoder ring, my position remains unchanged.

Initial implies an origin.

Period.

[Free]

Initial state implies an origin.

It most certainly does.

That's my whole fucking point, dude!

When I speak of an origin, I am not only speaking of the origin of it's form at T-0, but also from whatever it came from before it came into the T-0 form.

You have no clue what it came from.

We don't need to know what it came from, but only to acknowledge that it came from something.

Whatever it "CAME from" would be "initial", (and you have no way of knowing anything about even *if* it "came from" anything, (which in itself is meaningless ... as "come from" involves time, which would be BEFORE time existed).

Again, knowledge is not the issue here. We can't know that if we start counting numbers they will continue infinitely and eternally. We can't ever know that. But we can reason it to be true.

Initial : definition
"existing or occurring at the beginning".

Nice try there genius. "Initial" means *first* ... *beginning*. 
You just said you agreed with Penrose. An infinite series of bang and re-bangs has no "initial" anything.
It is not possible to define "initial" with a SERIES of bangs and re-bangs and where whatever was at high density and temperature, is unknown.

Oh well. Back to square one.

We are talking about the initial state of the existence of the singularity from which our observable universe emerged, not the initial state of that which preceded it.

Again, my position is that there was never an origin to anything. I see an observable universe, but by no means do I see the result of any origin. What I see is a recycling of an existence of energy, and since energy can neither be created nor destroyed but it merely transforms, it represents an eternal state.

We don't know what the universe is, but what I do reasonably conclude is that it's not just what we can observe, and that is far beyond our meager human ability to comprehend.

[Bucky Ball]

You are splitting hairs. If the extra dimensions are inside our own universe (tiny dimensions), it wouldn't support other universes, but if the dimensions are large, it means we are a bubble inside a bigger universe (brane theories), so at least one more universe.

All speculation. No facts. You have no evidence NOW of anything you speculate on. 
It's not "splitting hairs". You're sounding desperate. 

@Free already mentioned the 5D black hole theory which deviates from standard big bang by 4%, he linked a newer version of the theory which is probably doing better. There are more, like this one.

All speculation. 

As I said, the available data can be interpreted in a way to suggest we are a floating bubble in a higher-dimensional universe (brane cosmology). These theories ARE competitive to the standard big bang, they cannot be dismissed. 

LOL. Nothing but your opinion. No support offered. 

We don't have to see them to know them. Other universes are already being inferred from current observations. Those theories ARE competitive to standard big bang. 

LOL. Oh really ? References required. 

Dude, are you too blessed with faith?   "100%" is exclusive to faith-based epistemology.

Oh really ? Faith is now a dirty word for you ? 

Knowledge is probabilistic. The probabilistic knowledge of other universes is considerable and competitive to the standard big bang.

Assertion. No evidence. Tell that to the surgean doing your heart surgery. LOL

I do not advocate anything. I agree the standard big bang is the established theory. I'm arguing your confidence that other alternatives can be dismissed is not warranted, unless, you are blessed with faith. 

Bullshit. 
They can all be dismissed until there are FACTS that support them, (none of which you have presented). BTW it is YOU that have the strongest faith here, "dude". Your rampant speculations are all fluffy and nice, but they are not science, nor cosmology. They're nice though. Fluffy fairy tales.

[Bucky Ball]

We don't know what the universe is, but what I do reasonably conclude is that it's not just what we can observe, and that is far beyond our meager human ability to comprehend.

LMAO. You don't know what it is, but you certainly seem to know what to compare it to. 
No one ever said it's just what we can "observe". Nice leetle strawman you cooked up there. 
Still no references. All assertions. Dismissed.

[Free]

We don't know what the universe is, but what I do reasonably conclude is that it's not just what we can observe, and that is far beyond our meager human ability to comprehend.

LMAO. You don't know what it is, but you certainly seem to know what to compare it to. 
No one ever said it's just what we can "observe". Nice leetle strawman you cooked up there. 
Still no references. All assertions. Dismissed.

By all means, the floor is yours.

Tell us, dear sage, what exactly is the universe?

[Hussein]

All speculation. No facts. You have no evidence NOW of anything you speculate on.

Don't you bother clicking on the links? One of them was titled: Observational Evidence for Cosmological-Scale Extra Dimensions. In case you don't know, those extra dimensions mean we are a brane inside a higher-dimensional universe i.e. the bulk universe.

All speculation. LOL.

No.   

As I said, the available data can be interpreted in a way to suggest we are a floating bubble in a higher-dimensional universe (brane cosmology). These theories ARE competitive to the standard big bang, they cannot be dismissed. 

LOL. Nothing but your opinion. No support offered. 

What do you mean? I linked two articles surrounding brane cosmology. Again, Observational Evidence for Cosmological-Scale Extra Dimensions. Stop this "show me the evidence" nonsense, you've been provided.

LOL. Oh really ? References required. 

You've been given more than once, you don't bother to read.

Knowledge is probabilistic. The probabilistic knowledge of other universes is considerable and competitive to the standard big bang.

Assertion. No evidence.

They can all be dismissed until there are FACTS that support them, (none of which you have presented). BTW it is YOU that have the strongest faith here, "dude". Your rampant speculations are all fluffy and nice, but they are not science, nor cosmology. They're nice though. Fluffy fairy tales.

Whatever.

I would suggest reading this article about Bayesian epistemology, Bayesian confirmation, and evidence, in short, when we say there is evidence for a model it means the conditional probability of the model being true increases given that piece of evidence. P(Model | new evidence) > P (Model | old evidence). The evidence doesn't have to be a direct contact with another universe, that would be interesting, but not necessary. If we can develop a mathematical model supporting other universes that can fit the available data, it means it is strongly supported by evidence.

There are many cosmological models, all of them are supported by evidence to some degree, the most probable model is the Lambda-CDM. Other models cannot be dismissed, they fit the cosmological data with an accuracy competitive to the standard big bang theory, in some regions they are more accurate. 

Back to OP:

We test a class of holographic models for the very early Universe against cosmological observations and find that they are competitive to the standard cold dark matter model with a cosmological constant (ΛCDM) of cosmology.
...
By comparing the Bayesian evidence for the models, we find that ΛCDM does a better job globally, while the holographic models provide a (marginally) better fit to the data without very low multipoles

From the abstract of the paper cited in the OP: From Planck Data to Planck Era: Observational Tests of Holographic Cosmology

[Bucky Ball]

The very word "initial" implies an origin of existence. It implies the beginning, the first; the origin of everything else. 

Unless you've got some other definition tucked away in your decoder ring, my position remains unchanged.

Initial implies an origin.

Period.

Then use a more appropriate word. 
Your argument is a form of the Dictionary Fallacy.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum...ctionarium
You can't define reality based a a word YOU CHOSE to use.

You can't say what actually was at high density and high temperature, ... therefore your "initial" concept is wrong. 
It's not "initial" if there was a state (which you have no idea how that came to be) from which the Bang happened. 

Tell us, dear sage, what exactly is the universe?

That's your rabbit hole. Have fun down there.

Oh .... "period". (That means I'm right). 
We get that you stomp your little feet ("period") and demand that you are correct. It's your schtick.

[Bucky Ball]

There are many cosmological models, all of them are supported by evidence to some degree, the most probable model is the Lambda-CDM. Other models cannot be dismissed, they fit the cosmological data with an accuracy competitive to the standard big bang theory, in some regions they are more accurate. 

So you don't know.... that's what I thought. 
At least you admit it.

Speaking of reading :
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...e-fashion/
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sci...ing-theory

From : "Observational Evidence for Extra Dimensions from Dark Matter"

"While string scenarios and extra dimensions have not yet been tested experimentally so far in the laboratory,
recent astronomical observations of dark matter, on the other hand, may shed light on the issue. It should be
noted that any connection of string scenarios to observable phenomena would be an exciting possibility deserving further investigation."

"The plausible discrepancies between theory and observations, although still vigorously debated, have stimulated many attempts to understand the nature of dark matter and to modify the CCDM model, among which one of the more popular schemes is the self-interacting cold dark matter model."

"The nature of this self-interaction between dark matter particles is unknown. Its strength generally must be put
in by hand."

"It should be noted that the issue of self-interacting dark matter is still under debate"

"Nevertheless, we are suggesting a potentially new connection between string scenarios and astrophysical phenomena."

"Ordinarily, string scenarios are evaluated on the basis of aesthetics and heuristic mathematical arguments.
For example, it has been speculated that the large extra dimensions might have instabilities. "

Yeah .... it's all speculation. It's not "evidence".

[Hussein]

Yeah .... it's all speculation. It's not "evidence".

Scientists do not agree:

Observational Evidence for Cosmological-Scale Extra Dimensions

Observational Evidence for Extra Dimensions from Dark Matter

Your unfounded assertions or peer-reviewed scientific papers? 

From : "Observational Evidence for Extra Dimensions from Dark Matter"

You quote from "Observational Evidence for Extra Dimensions" then you conclude there is "no evidence"? 

"While string scenarios and extra dimensions have not yet been tested experimentally so far in the laboratory,

Just bolding those 6 words, how about the next words? it says it's not tested in the lab, because the technology is not good enough:

Attempts to test the theory are executed by smashing together two protons in the Large Hadron Collider so that they disperse and release elementary particles. If a postulated graviton appeared after a collision, for such a particle to disappear, and its disappearance be observed, that would suggest that the graviton had escaped into other dimensions beyond our universe's observable four. No experiments from the Large Hadron Collider have been decisive thus far.[5][6][7][8][9][10] However, the operation range of the LHC (13 TeV collision energy) covers only a small part of the predicted range in which evidence for LED would be recorded (a few TeV to 1016 TeV).[11] This suggests that the theory might be more thoroughly tested with advanced technology.

He continues: 

recent astronomical observations of dark matter, on the other hand, may shed light on the issue. 

What is it saying? It says there is no evidence from the lab, but there can be evidence from astronomical observations and the author(s) have demonstrated that. They have provided Observational evidence for extra dimensions from astronomical data.

noted that any connection of string scenarios to observable phenomena would be an exciting possibility deserving further investigation

It's a possibility and the authors believe they have just actualized that possibility, they have demonstrated evidence for higher dimensions. 

The conclusion you want does not follow, the authors are not insane to title their article: "Observational Evidence for Extra Dimensions" if they think there is no evidence.

"The plausible discrepancies between theory and observations, although still vigorously debated, have stimulated many attempts to understand the nature of dark matter and to modify the CCDM model, among which one of the more popular schemes is the self-interacting cold dark matter model."

It is talking about CCDM (collisionless cold dark matter), the standard big bang theory, it says the standard model is still vigorously debated   so people are motivated to come up with new theories, it wasn't the right bit to quote, it says the exact opposite of what you are looking for.

"The nature of this self-interaction between dark matter particles is unknown. Its strength generally must be put in by hand."

Self-interaction between dark matter particles is unknown, the authors are proposing a theory to make that unknown, known, by introducing new dimensions. Supported by evidence.

"It should be noted that the issue of self-interacting dark matter is still under debate"

So what? Something under debate does not mean "merely speculative no evidence", no. You just (mistakenly) quoted a part saying the standard big bang model is still vigorously debated.

"Nevertheless, we are suggesting a potentially new connection between string scenarios and astrophysical phenomena."

They are humbly offering their work observational evidence for higher dimensions as a "potentially new connection". Why? because unlike you, they can be wrong.

"Ordinarily, string scenarios are evaluated on the basis of aesthetics and heuristic mathematical arguments. 

The next sentence says: "The empirically appealing aspect of the ADD scenario is its connection to observable phenomena, which allows a scientific evaluation, via test or falsification."

It's saying string theory is hard to evaluate outside pure theoretical context, their theory is interesting because it is testing it using evidence, and they have done just that. They have provided supporting evidence for extra dimensions from astronomical observations. 

 it has been speculated that the large extra dimensions might have instabilities. "

Irrelevant, it's saying the notion of extra dimensions having instabilities is speculative because it's only based on theoretical analysis, no evidence, he is highlighting it to emphasize that unlike typical string theoretical speculations, their work is based on evidence to show there are extra dimensions. Again, the opposite of what you are looking for.

Yeah .... it's all speculation. It's not "evidence".

[Free]

The very word "initial" implies an origin of existence. It implies the beginning, the first; the origin of everything else. 

Unless you've got some other definition tucked away in your decoder ring, my position remains unchanged.

Initial implies an origin.

Period.

Then use a more appropriate word. 
Your argument is a form of the Dictionary Fallacy.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum...ctionarium
You can't define reality based a a word YOU CHOSE to use.

You can't say what actually was at high density and high temperature, ... therefore your "initial" concept is wrong. 
It's not "initial" if there was a state (which you have no idea how that came to be) from which the Bang happened.

You know your argument is falling apart at the seams when the person you are debating with uses your own words against you:

"The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of very high density and high temperature."

You quoted the above, and now you are saying it's wrong?

I never chose the word (YOU DID) or it's definition. 

Tell us, dear sage, what exactly is the universe?

That's your rabbit hole. Have fun down there.

Oh .... "period". (That means I'm right). 
We get that you stomp your little feet ("period") and demand that you are correct. It's your schtick.

Uh-huh. As expected, you couldn't answer.

And ladies and gentlemen, that's my point.

Thank you, and have a nice fucking day!

[Free]

From : "Observational Evidence for Extra Dimensions from Dark Matter"

You quote from "Observational Evidence for Extra Dimensions" then you conclude there is "no evidence"?   

^^^^ This.

[Bucky Ball]

From : "Observational Evidence for Extra Dimensions from Dark Matter"

You quote from "Observational Evidence for Extra Dimensions" then you conclude there is "no evidence"?   

^^^^ This.

Yes dear. I read it, and evaluated what it was saying. 
The upshot is that they don't know. 
So yes, you see dear, that's how evaluation works. 
Quoting from a piece that does not say what someone is saying, to demonstrate it's wrong, is how it works. 

BTW, you forgot to stomp your foot. 

Period. 

He agrees, they don't agree. A position which is disputed is not evidence of anything except the dispute. 

The "initial conditions" of the Big Bang .... does NOT SAY (as you Fundy Christians say) that they are the "initial conditions" of what caused the Big Bang. "Initial conditions' of the Big Bang implies the Bang is already underway. Nice try there sport ... with all your stupid bluster, you're still wrong. Period. You DO NOT KNOW what was at high temperature and high density .... THAT IS THE POINT. Your claim that "something does not come from nothing" does NOT apply here. You are IN ERROR ... "nothing" is NOT at high temperature and density. You can bla bla bla all day, in an attempt to cover up your fundamental error, and misunderstanding of what the Big Bang was ... it's not going to work. You demonstrated you have NO CLUE what you are talking about. 

You're also wrong about "initial conditions" in the Wiki piece I provided. 
"The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of very high density and high temperature"
The sentence describes a universe ALREADY in place .. "the universe expanded" ... not "the universe began"... The universe was already hot and dense, and in the inflationary epoch, the universe expanded. The Big Bang Theory says absolutely NOTHING about something coming from nothing. The initial conditions could have been the residue of a previous Big Crunch, or they could have existed infinitely. The theory does not say anything about what caused the conditions to BE at high density and temperature.


Calm down dear. Go out and stomp your little feet. Period
You too have a nice fucking day.

LMAO

When you start to learn a little about Cosmology, you will learn there are "epochs" in Cosmology.
The Big Bang is a general term for the expansionary epoch. It's not the state from which the banging came from.

"The Big Bang occurs in which ordinary space and time develop out of a primeval state (possibly a virtual particle or false vacuum) described by a quantum theory of gravity or "Theory of Everything". All matter and energy of the entire visible universe is contained in a hot, dense point (gravitational singularity), a billionth the size of a nuclear particle. This state has been described as a particle desert. Other than a few scant details, conjecture dominates discussion about the earliest moments of the universe's history since no effective means of testing this far back in space-time is presently available. WIMPS (weakly interacting massive particles) or dark matter and dark energy may have appeared and been the catalyst for the expansion of the singularity. The infant universe cools as it begins expanding outward. It is almost completely smooth, with quantum variations beginning to cause slight variations in density."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o...anck_epoch

The Theory says nothing about something coming from nothing.

[Free]

You quote from "Observational Evidence for Extra Dimensions" then you conclude there is "no evidence"?   

^^^^ This.

Yes dear. I read it, and evaluated what it was saying. 
The upshot is that they don't know. 
So yes, you see dear, that's how evaluation works. 
Quoting from a piece that does not say what someone is saying, to demonstrate it's wrong, is how it works. 

BTW, you forgot to stomp your foot. 

Period. 

He agrees, they don't agree. A position which is disputed is not evidence of anything except the dispute.

It's evidence of acceptance, which is the point entirely.

The "initial conditions" of the Big Bang ....

That's ... not the quote.

"Initial state," the state of being.

You don't get to change the description to make it fit into your agenda.

[Bucky Ball]

^^^^ This.

Yes dear. I read it, and evaluated what it was saying. 
The upshot is that they don't know. 
So yes, you see dear, that's how evaluation works. 
Quoting from a piece that does not say what someone is saying, to demonstrate it's wrong, is how it works. 

BTW, you forgot to stomp your foot. 

Period. 

He agrees, they don't agree. A position which is disputed is not evidence of anything except the dispute.

It's evidence of acceptance, which is the point entirely.

The "initial conditions" of the Big Bang ....

That's ... not the quote.

"Initial state," the state of being.

You don't get to change the description to make it fit into your agenda.

Acceptance by some is evidence of a dispute. It's not at all the point, entirely. 
Period. 

You have no knowledge of any "initial state". YOU said Penrose's idea was what YOUR point was. 
Penrose said nothing about "initial state" ... in fact he said the opposite. Infinite series of bangs and re-bangs ... there is no state that is "initial". 
See his book "Cycles Of Time". Quite the opposite.
You're not doing very well here.

[Free]

Yes dear. I read it, and evaluated what it was saying. 
The upshot is that they don't know. 
So yes, you see dear, that's how evaluation works. 
Quoting from a piece that does not say what someone is saying, to demonstrate it's wrong, is how it works. 

BTW, you forgot to stomp your foot. 

Period. 

He agrees, they don't agree. A position which is disputed is not evidence of anything except the dispute.

It's evidence of acceptance, which is the point entirely.

The "initial conditions" of the Big Bang ....

That's ... not the quote.

"Initial state," the state of being.

You don't get to change the description to make it fit into your agenda.

Acceptance by some is evidence of a dispute. It's not at all the point, entirely. 
Period.   

In the context of this discussion, it's all about acceptance. In case you've forgotten, the subject matter of this discussion deals with different views, and how those different views gain acceptance in the scientific community.

You have no knowledge of any "initial state". YOU said Penrose's idea was what YOUR point was. 
Penrose said nothing about "initial state" ... in fact he said the opposite. Infinite series of bangs and re-bangs ... there is no state that is "initial". 
See his book "Cycles Of Time". Quite the opposite.
You're not doing very well here.

Since you obviously haven't the first clue what I am talking about, I will place your misunderstanding in quotes along with my own quote below:

SLike I keep saying, the biggest problem with the current Big Bang model is that it's nonsense. Something does not come from nothing. 

The way the current Big Bang model is presented is not unlike how Christians present their God. They cannot explain how their God exists, or that before God created everything (Big Bang anyone?) there was nothing, which begs the question of what the fuck was God (the singularity) doing before God (the singularity) created everything?

Did God (the singularity) just sit there for eternity, dormant? 

"Nothing" is not at "very high density" and "high temperature". The Big Bang Theory does not say "something came from nothing".

I was never talking about what proceeded from the singularity from T-0, but what preceded the state of the existence of the singularity entirely.

It did not get there from nowhere, nor from nothingness. It of itself is the "something" that "does not come from nothing."

My position is that it was formed from preexisting matter and energy, exactly the same way a Black Hole singularity is formed.

And that was my whole point, but you could not put the simple 2 + 2 together.

Next time, trying reading it in context, dumbass.