PDA

View Full Version : Revisiting the Holographic Model



Dave Barnes
2011-May-21 Sat, 08:10
Some months ago, I started to make a case for thinking about holograms and a holographic model of the universe to be juxtaposed with quantum mechanics explanations for RV and PK. Glenn, Michelle, and others were posting interesting ideas about our place with respect to mass, time, dimensions, and so on. I jumped in to say that I backed a holographic paradigm.

I’d been an adherent of this wave-centric approach for the better part of my life and assumed that it was a well-understood alternative explanation. David Bohm had talked about a holographic universe and Karl Pribram had proposed a holographic model of the brain in the late sixties. Edgar Mitchell even gave a talk on RV and the Quantum Hologram at an early IRVA meeting.

I had a pretty good personal understanding of the way that things work but I decided to review all of the older material to see who had the best “concise description” that I could offer. I would post some of the best quotes to do my part then go back to get a better grasp of the concepts Glenn and others in the Guild present regularly. Unfortunately, the first holographic universe material was about forty years old and seemed a bit too philosophical to be useful to this group. Around the early eighties, supporting research was there, but the concepts, although never dismissed, slipped out of the mainstream; possibly, the concepts were too convoluted for general consumption. In following years, the holographic paradigm was carried through the general literature, but as I reviewed it to bring up here, I couldn’t help but think “They’re leaving out all of the best parts!”

Recently, I saw that Brian Greene had a section on the holographic concept in his book, “The Hidden Reality.” I was hopeful that it might contain a concise statement to offer. It wasn’t there and sadly, the entire concept seemed distorted beyond recognition. From what I’ve been reading, I’m not even sure how many people understand what holograms are now, let alone what they might have to do with the way things are.

I still want to offer this idea as a useful paradigm, so I’m compelled to present the “holographic approach” from my perspective, in my terms.

I can make a statement about where this is going, but it may not make much sense until I’ve offered examples. This paradigm provides a platform for what we experience in remote viewing and PK. The paradigm doesn’t contradict quantum mechanics, but contains and explains the characteristics described by quantum mechanics as spooky, uncertain, entangled, and so on. I believe that it also explains some things that we see with remote viewing.

This will take a few posts. I’m not convinced that there is an ordered way to describe this so I’ll offer a group of items in threads and blogs, non sequiturs, with full knowledge that they’re as likely to evidence insanity as insight. If it’s the former, I apologize in advance for perceiving you as fellow travelers.

Glenn stated that he believes that thought has mass.

I think that he is correct. I also think we need to reorient our view on what mass is. My “how could you possibly think that?” proposal as a follow-on is:

Non-locality works because space isn’t spacious.

Dave Barnes
2011-May-21 Sat, 08:22
Universes exist in a dimensionless field where dimensionless waves interfere and cross correlate to deliver an experience the inhabitants of the universes perceive to be space and time and things.

The wavelength for a “holographic” universe, at least the aspect that we perceive, is probably half the radial distance between two electron shells. When electrons drop from one shell to the one below it expending energy as a photon, or are excited and move to the next level, they may not be found “in-between” the two shells. They are said to go out of existence and reappear at the adjacent level. With a particle and space defined holographically, the disappearance represents a resolution boundary (akin to a Nyquist boundary) where there isn’t enough wave to characterize the minimal item for an observer comprised of the same wave reference system. The electron hasn’t gone out of existence, the interference pattern that defines the electron can’t resolve it in the reference space. In conjunction with this, the reason that electrons have the smallest mass is because the ability for an observer to resolve “thingness” falls below the resolution of the wave there.

At the other extreme, because a given holographic universe is itself a static reference system relative to a fixed fundamental wavelength, the reference system defines and limits the apparent behavior of space and motion. The reason that there is a maximum velocity for light (C) is because space itself is defined by the interference pattern.

Holograms demonstrate a mechanism for creating space and objects virtually. Space is perceived when a like defined reference system intersects the hologram. In our case, C is the reference. Other reference values (limiting speeds different from our C=3.8x10^8m/second) work to resolve universes...just not ours.

C lays out what distance means, so mass, space, and time aren’t constrained by C, they are constructed by C.

We have difficulty describing this because we want to depict the solution with propagating waves travelling through space, then travelling through planes of interference patterns in order to define places. The hologram defines space – but there is no space in the field as we think of it, to hold the hologram. The reference system doesn’t require a place to be because things and places to be are the system’s children.

As Gertrude Stein described Oakland: “There is no there, there.”

Glenn B. Wheaton
2011-May-22 Sun, 01:47
Aloha Dave,

I understand what you mean here and it could well be as you laid out but perhaps we could expand a bit (like the Universe). Let’s step back away from consciousness and consider the Universe unobserved. The sheer scope of the Universe must infinitesimally exceed any consciousness that arises within it so surely consciousness must be an anomaly unless it is a true dimension. I am not on my “Consciousness is a Dimension” soapbox by the way. I say that consciousness is an anomaly because it would not need space or mass per se to exist. So we direct ourselves back to the vastness of the Universe and all of it physicals. Because the amount of mass in the Universe would still be very small in relationship to the space that is infinitely available this Universe is all about the space and not the mass or consciousness.

Given that all matter in this Universe is part of a single event the possibility of some holographic quality is very real. Space would more than likely be holographically inert with no references because of infinity. In regards to the mass; holographic qualities would be limited to the original holographic structure unless the holography evolved with its mass keeping only references to its most recent state. In theory you would be able to examine a meteorite and recover its origin from its holographic residue.

I want you to imagine a man in a white coat with very thick glasses speaking at a microphone.

Hello everyone…bla bla bla … I am Dr. So and So and I have recently discovered that the Universe….. is actually a Wave. Albeit a very big wave we are moving very quickly and there is another wave in front of us and more than likely another wave behind us. I know that there is someplace that we are going because all the mass in our wave came from our destination in the future. Mass is the residue of the cataclysmic collision of waves at the point of destination which is carried back by reflected waves. Mass is achieved when space is compressed by incredible forces we currently do not understand. Because we are in a Wave and we are in fact traveling we must be traveling through a medium which we know nothing about. This medium must be a MasterVerse that is frankly ….less than Space.

As we get closer to our destination we will begin to see more mass in our wave. The wave in front of us will arrive at its point of resistance or destination and begin to backwash towards us. Even then it will take hundreds of thousands of years before we see the first galaxies heading towards us. Our only protection will be our space and the odds and chance that we will be missed. What we thought was the Big Bang was really our breaching event back into this wave. So we know the direction we are headed and it is a place we have been before. We also know that we are only one wave away from it.

The light’s turn off and the man walks off the stage…



The logic of all our mass and electrical qualities brings us no closer to understanding who we are, or where we are. There is a brutal quality to our survival in this Universe. Mass seems to be very fragile and quickly changing by fire, ice, or electrical discharges that could indiscriminately vaporize planets in its wake.

So I am thinking here…perhaps it’s not about us… Perhaps its what happens in a Wave.

Glenn

Michele
2011-May-22 Sun, 11:35
Aloha Dave,

I understand what you mean here and it could well be as you laid out but perhaps we could expand a bit (like the Universe). Let’s step back away from consciousness and consider the Universe unobserved. The sheer scope of the Universe must infinitesimally exceed any consciousness that arises within it so surely consciousness must be an anomaly unless it is a true dimension. I am not on my “Consciousness is a Dimension” soapbox by the way. I say that consciousness is an anomaly because it would not need space or mass per se to exist. So we direct ourselves back to the vastness of the Universe and all of it physicals. Because the amount of mass in the Universe would still be very small in relationship to the space that is infinitely available this Universe is all about the space and not the mass or consciousness.

Given that all matter in this Universe is part of a single event the possibility of some holographic quality is very real. Space would more than likely be holographically inert with no references because of infinity. In regards to the mass; holographic qualities would be limited to the original holographic structure unless the holography evolved with its mass keeping only references to its most recent state. In theory you would be able to examine a meteorite and recover its origin from its holographic residue.

I want you to imagine a man in a white coat with very thick glasses speaking at a microphone.

Hello everyone…bla bla bla … I am Dr. So and So and I have recently discovered that the Universe….. is actually a Wave. Albeit a very big wave we are moving very quickly and there is another wave in front of us and more than likely another wave behind us. I know that there is someplace that we are going because all the mass in our wave came from our destination in the future. Mass is the residue of the cataclysmic collision of waves at the point of destination which is carried back by reflected waves. Mass is achieved when space is compressed by incredible forces we currently do not understand. Because we are in a Wave and we are in fact traveling we must be traveling through a medium which we know nothing about. This medium must be a MasterVerse that is frankly ….less than Space.

As we get closer to our destination we will begin to see more mass in our wave. The wave in front of us will arrive at its point of resistance or destination and begin to backwash towards us. Even then it will take hundreds of thousands of years before we see the first galaxies heading towards us. Our only protection will be our space and the odds and chance that we will be missed. What we thought was the Big Bang was really our breaching event back into this wave. So we know the direction we are headed and it is a place we have been before. We also know that we are only one wave away from it.

The light’s turn off and the man walks off the stage…



The logic of all our mass and electrical qualities brings us no closer to understanding who we are, or where we are. There is a brutal quality to our survival in this Universe. Mass seems to be very fragile and quickly changing by fire, ice, or electrical discharges that could indiscriminately vaporize planets in its wake.

So I am thinking here…perhaps it’s not about us… Perhaps its what happens in a Wave.

Glenn

This is a very non-linear response to this thread, but it's funny how things become full circle. I started in with meditation years and years ago over what could be defined as a crisis of faith. Not so much a crisis, but a need for 'the answer'. That would start my journey through what is now called remote viewing; but I would jump on the science ladder along the way to avoid the 'new age' labels that came with that time frame. But, as I write this today, I feel like life after death is all about how well we 'resonate' with the universe.

I don't want to turn this into a theological discussion...I just want to state that more and more I think that as human beings, we are seeking that perfect state...and that perfect state may well be a state of vibration.

Robert
2011-May-23 Mon, 08:11
This may or may not be related but you all might want to read the book "The Spirit Molecule." It's about a not so new drug that has the ability to propel one into some very interesting wave/demensions. The book reminds me a lot of Dr. John Lilly's book, The Center of The Cyclone.
Robert

Dave Barnes
2011-May-29 Sun, 20:46
Glenn's and Michelle's and Robert's perspectives about what we're really doing are really important. I'm continuing along the mechanistic aspect for a few posts while I work through them to develop a response that is worthwhile.

The reason that I’m offering a holographic model for discussion isn’t to pit it against quantum mechanics or traditional wave theory. The idea of this model is to present a system of something that is easier for some of us to comprehend and predict behavior from than mathematical wave mechanics or quantum theory. For people who work with visual remote viewing, some of the things we see experientially and the way that they appear have counterparts in holograms.

The wave aspect of our reality has been a consensus concept since people accepted the interchange between identities of energy and mass; the e=mc^2 idea. I think that the Copenhagen Interpretation of wave-particle duality may be misinterpreted as "sometimes waves, sometimes particles” but should be “always waves, may be perceived as particles for counting convenience”. If you see the universe as always waves that may be focused into objectivity like light coming into focus through a magnifying glass, the mysteries deferred in quantum phenomena discussions – aren’t mysterious at all.

Just as perceiving objective particles has helped people understand and predict properties of things of their world, holograms provide something that we can manipulate with our hands and minds that help people understand the connected, underlying architecture of the world.

This holographic modeling approach doesn’t say that the world is illusory or that you can’t fire particles at sensor plates or that we’re all waved out across a 2D surface. It doesn’t deny that “entanglement” happens … but it does describe the concept with the language of “cross modulation” vs. strings and knots and such.

Holograms are a derivative of wave-field thinking. If you take a 2D cross section of a wave field, you get a hologram. A hologram is a subset, a “picture” of the wave field. The idea is that if you look at a collection of things that holograms can do, it will tell you about the way that less visualizable wave fields work.

What holograms aren’t

The terms hologram , holograph, holography, and such as used here originated with wave reconstruction systems and:


- aren’t related to 3D projection systems with lenses and mirrors;

- aren’t projections of 2D slides over 3D objects;

- aren’t related to 3D movies, TV, shutter glasses, red/blue anaglyphs, View Master views, prismatic post cards and signs, or other 3D systems that involve “stereo” recombination; and

- aren’t related to random dot stereograms and their derivatives such as the “Magic Eye ™” posters.

Mass produced white light holograms seen in wrapping paper and decorations, gracing our credit cards, attached to magazines, cereal boxes, embossed in candy bars, and so on –are- true holograms, but because of various properties that make them interesting commercially, they generally don’t demonstrate holograms’ more interesting non-local, pattern filtering, and unusual space defining characteristics that pertain to this discussion.

The holograms that I’m talking about want to be Portable Holes.


...

Dave Barnes
2011-May-29 Sun, 20:55
Most display holograms today are white light projection holograms. These holograms are created in such a way that a curved mirror projects a 3D image in front of the plane of the image or centered on the plane of the image, but the typical characteristic is that the projection is smaller than the photographic substrate.

When holography was mostly a laboratory curiosity, the common examples were “transmission” holograms. These were formed so that you looked through them to see objects much like looking through a little store window. While the objects on display were mostly visible “in the spotlight”, if you moved around carefully and looked off into the darkness, you could see a bigger world wherever the optics scattered bits of light to mix as the interference pattern on the film. The little window was a portal to a world as far as its contained light would let you see. (When you see yourself in a mirror, you can move around and see off into the 3D world of the looking glass – imagine this ability snapped as a photo.)

The following links demonstrate spaces and objects defined by light wave reconstruction. There is no “distance” involved. Objects are perceived relationally.

The Looking Glass is an example of a familiar kind of commercial hologram that is a little bit projection and a little bit window. This example is a stepping off place.

The Looking Glass (http://hrvg.org/article_style1_videos3.php?getarticleid=168)

The visual experience of a transmission hologram is akin to “The Hole Idea” Looney Tune from the ‘50’s or the Sea of Holes visited in the Yellow Submarine. The non-local characteristic of wave reconstruction is apparent if you look through a keyhole-sized space of the plane… and see what you would see in the distance if you were looking through a hole.

Portable Holes (http://hrvg.org/article_style1_videos3.php?getarticleid=165)


...

Dave Barnes
2011-May-29 Sun, 21:07
In the late 70s and early 80s, I set up a primitive optical bench and tried to make holograms to demonstrate a catalog of interesting properties.
The techniques to make photographic holograms have always been pretty demanding and at the time, the requirements for isolation from physical vibration, special ultra high resolution photo media, manual chemical processing, special optics, and stable lasers kept many people from getting involved. I cobbled together enough material and makeshift equipment to make a collection of crappy holograms.

The process of making crappy holograms was similar to the process of making high quality holograms but succeeded in direct proportion to inexperience and equipment marginality.

To make a hologram, using parts situated on a big heavy table, you would shine a laser through a microscope lens to spread its beam out to be more like a flashlight beam. The wider beam passed through a piece of thick plate glass so that part reflected off the front of the glass and part reflected off the back of the glass to make two expanding beams. Using a bunch of mirrors, one of the beams was directed at a piece of film and the other at a reflective target object near the film. The plain beam hitting the film directly would be the reference and the bumpy beam that bounced off the reflective target object before arriving at the film was called the object beam.

Holographers with money had bright lasers, glass photo pates, and equipment that could be screwed down. Money-free holographers worked with dim lasers, flexible plastic film, and lenses and mirrors that were stabilized in sand or sat directly on the table top.

The big difference in quality happened while trying to expose the film because the work of getting the photo media ready had to be done in absolute darkness. The poor man’s task in the dark involved getting a roll of film out of a container and cutting a suitable piece of film. Still in the dark, while holding the film by its edges, the emulsion side was determined, and the film was taped to a pane of glass. Still in the dark, it was necessary to hold perfectly still, barely breathing for several minutes while the system stabilized, then open a shutter to let the laser beam emerge -- all without touching anything.

During the tenth of a second or so while the exposure occurred like a dim lightning flash, you could see where you had inadvertently moved lenses, mirrors, the target object, and taped the film at some weird angle. The disarray was captured in your memory as the interference pattern was captured on film. Black darkness returned.

Back in darkness, you removed the tape from the film, carried it to a room with chemicals and processed it.

There was room for error. :)

When the chemicals had done their work, the lights could be turned on and the film dried. If all had gone well, you could see guinea hen feathery edges of an interference pattern extending from a darkened center section on the film.

With the developed film in hand, you could see if the guinea hen feathers made a hologram or if you had jiggled something in the system during the exposure, even a hair-width, and the feathers were nothing.

I could stop the description here and leave the impression that the process of making a hologram this way could be a metaphor for remote viewing. There’s art and care in getting ready, working in the dark without being able to tell exactly what you are doing, momentary flashes where things are visible, and to paraphrase a bit of Glenn’s wisdom, “sometimes you just get feathers”.

… But the part of pioneering (i.e. crappy) holography that visual remote viewers would recognize came next. With the fresh film in hand, you had to put it into the reference beam again and find the hologram.


...

Dave Barnes
2011-May-29 Sun, 21:23
Holograms created to be illuminated with a plane of laser light rather than white light are relatively picky about their position, forward-backward direction, and angular orientation in the illuminating beam. This aspect isn’t primitive but a side-effect of the purity and definition of the light source.

After creating a planar hologram in the dark as described above, even when you were careful, you never knew if you had taped the film upside down, right-side up, sideways, or at some other angle in the 360 degree plane across the beam. After the “pinwheel” angle, the side-to-side, top-to-bottom, and every angle you can get by holding your wrist still and pointing a finger --could be in question. The forward-backward direction could be off.

When everything else was right, the target object might not have been positioned as you expected.

To –find- the target object in a window (transmission) hologram, you projected a diffuse laser beam through the window and moved it around with your hand while watching any shapes that could be seen shift and dance until they coalesced into what you were looking for. At that point, your hand-eye coordination locked them into place.

If the hologram was flipped front to back relative to what it needed to be, the spaces were all inverted. This is not an optical illusion like a Neckar cube – the space really is inverted (a.k.a. pseudoscopic) so that far away things are close and close things appear to be far away. When the hologram was positioned this way, it looked like soup where the large target object was hard to perceive but all of its textures and other high spatial frequency components were relatively clear. When shifted about, the relative motions of the components were backwards to what they should have been.

Flipped correctly forward to back, the general spaces were correct but any of the other angles might be off. Depending on their internal organization, this made certain components appear and disappear.

Like light shining on a lake, reflective objects were helpful for orienting the scene. Such reflections are bright and shift naturally with perspective. For example, if you were expecting to see a shiny object laid out like a lake, you automatically knew when up was right.

When the general spaces locked into place, you would get a feeling akin to locking in your balance while riding a bicycle. At that point, a scene of the table could be visible but the target object might be almost out of view. You knew that you had found the target but if you handed the hologram to a friend to see, unless they were adept at the same movements, the friend might never find it.

Here are two examples of what this hologram finding process is like. Please be aware that holograms don’t translate to web video as well as they might because they lose high spatial frequency components to compression.

A Pseudoscopic Unicorn (http://hrvg.org/article_style1_videos3.php?getarticleid=164)

Hunting for Reindeer (http://hrvg.org/article_style1_videos3.php?getarticleid=170)


...

Glenn B. Wheaton
2011-May-30 Mon, 03:27
Aloha Dave,

I liked the videos and a great deal is implied by them. I want to ramble a bit if you don’t mind about the things that should be possible based on what you have presented so far. I think you are hinting about a collapse of Space/Time. While there is Space/Time component it would be only a very small consideration. I would love to see a Fourier analysis of one of your film records. It would be reasonable (but not scientific) to consider that the entire environment was captured along with Rudolf including yourself. Not really because you wanted to but, because there must be phase considerations to the environment that you captured. Rambling on I would state that magnetic media from historic events will be used in the future to extract holographic environments as well as the sound or video format of the original broadcast. You would be able to finally look at the grassy knoll on that infamous day.

This would extrapolate further to include recovery of holographic environments from surfaces like glass and liquids, but I am leaning out there on that. It is starting to sound very Haarpy lol. I would also love to shoot your film through some type of modified MRI that would let you split off sections to be re-synthesized into new holograms. Boy that would cost a few pennies.

Anyway really late here just now, so more tomorrow.

Glenn

Glenn B. Wheaton
2011-May-30 Mon, 22:50
Just a bit more rambling Dave. I took some time to review how you obtained your images; and compared it to several other similar results and have a question for you.

Did you create it or just take a picture of something that already existed?

I have a fair understanding of radio holograms from working with ionispheric sounders and muf/luf (most useable and least useable frequency) propagation theories but we only ever considered the 2d data as that was all we needed. In theory the sounder telemetry could be modeled holographically. Today satellites use a scatter technology that allows for a more robust holo-image of a particular portion of the ionosphere.

I asked you if you thought you created it because there are other conditions that may be present that may create holograms in different wavelengths that we don’t normally observe. Gamma rays immediately come to mind and it would seem possible that Jupiter noise could produce holograms on Earth as well.

Is your capture configuration really a Hologram Radio, a Hologram Camera, or a Hologram Maker?

Glenn

Dave Barnes
2011-Jun-04 Sat, 07:54
I do think that space and time are intrinsically collapsed but that we perceive dimensions as a working reality. When we discuss what it means to be conscious, we describe states of observation such as the direct observer, the hidden observer, and so on. To observe is to objectify. This compartments the non-local everything into something that can be discussed as an aspect of the great conglomeration without having to deal with "aspects of the smear".

We are experiencing time and space as our perspective or localization of the non-local. It's our home and it's where our language derives.

My friend, Sid, interprets the situation as the "bag in space" problem. If you have a physical bag with nothing on the inside and nothing on the outside, does it even have an inside or outside? The surface bagginess doesn't even make sense. The bag in space is a minimal topology and could exist, but without an isolated additional object (perhaps another bag?) you can't say much about it.

While words evolve to handle what underlies objects, we can describe the relationships among objects and the processes that we experience. People in the RV (or PK etc.) community recognize that their experience have identifiable characteristics and repeatable patterns of observation ... but the "our home" space and time language references are at odds with what the experience is.

I agree that there's more going on than a different way of working with time and space. A first inroad is recognition that there is a self-consistent alternative to the way we understand discrete physical objects.

Glenn's comments about history stored in a meteorite and the recordings of events in physical objects are objective examples of non-locality's (reversible) extension to things. Psychometrists, for example, Pam Coronado and Noreen Renier, describe their viewing experiences as hands-on fusions or interpenetration (albeit guided) with objects which comprise adjacent moments and scenes as part of their make up.

William Tiller does research with respect to imparting information to/into objects which other people can recover or which have effects on their environments.

Currently, RV people might interpret the psychometrist's interaction as a variation of the coordinate-target-reference system. Likewise, the coordinate keys can be interpreted as "information objects" that work the same way as more tangible objects.

The understanding of wavy holograms applies to understanding these other areas.

While RV can visit the "grassy knoll" now, the possibility to create equipment that plays the area directly is implied by all of this. The same goes for the lab where I made the pictures and the place where I ate candy I wasn't supposed to have.

So much for anonymity.


...

Dave Barnes
2011-Jun-04 Sat, 08:48
The "reddish" holograms in the little videos are silver halide film holograms that I snapped of physical objects like the porcelain unicorn and the frosted glass Rudolph.

I positioned a piece of film adjacent to the physical object and aimed coherent light from a laser toward the film and object in such a way that the film picked up light scattered from the object and mixed it with more direct light to encode a pattern on the film that could be played back.

The system is called a holographic "camera", but it doesn't really need a lens. My lenses were only used to expand a pencil-thin beam of light big enough to flashlight beam size to light up the physical object. The light hits the film directly.

A little "shutter" is used to let the beam of laser light into the system. If you imagine sitting in the dark with a laser pointer aimed at a figurine while using your other hand to block and unblock the beam, you've got 90% of the system in your head already. The process is actually very simple but keeping things still, making the beam wide, and handling film without light hitting it before you want it to, is what makes their production tricky.

Today with laser pointers, making film holograms is much easier than it was before. (There's even a $99 kit here: Holokits.com (http://www.holokits.com/catalog.htm) ) Of course, if you make them, they may turn out better than my crappy holograms where the side effects of crappiness may be interesting with respect to this discussion.

When I was making (snapping holopictures of) these things, my goal was to transfer the techniques to waves other than light so that I could make wave-based tools that would work in special ways. The technology and my resources weren't ready for that so I've got a pile of snapped crapograms ... with special demonstrative value.

Holographic wave mechanics are applicable to any kind of wave. -- Holograms on film are just a special case of using “circular” (usually depicted as sine waves or spirals to indicate time passing to show their relationship to a time-space system) wave geometry to do something useful. Sound waves, x-rays, microwaves, anything that “oscillates”, i.e. periodically changes its relative charge, position, color, transparency, etc., by moving from one polar state to the opposite, will exhibit holographic interactions.

Dennis Gabor invented holography as a way to improve the resolution of electron microscopy in 1947. Almost 50 years ago, in 1962, Emmett Leith and Juris Upatnieks at the University of Michigan’s Willow Run Laboratories invented off-axis holography using lasers, the kind of holography I’m demonstrating in the little “red” videos. If you look at titles of papers coming out of Willow Run in the years around that time, it’s clear that their work and probably a majority of our fundamental holography technology, like the provenance of the RV community, is tightly coupled with military radar and sonar research.

Synthetic aperture radar and sonar are in the wave reconstruction family. When I mention the aperture with respect to RV, however, I’m referring to an information modulation, an “intent derived mental perspective”, that acts as a natural decoding reference via “mind hologram” wave superposition.

Silver film holograms are “snapshots” of interfering waves where the squiggles are captured primarily in a microscopic pattern of black silver grains. Wave reconstruction radar and sonar involve capturing the returns from scans (where scans are usually made by the motion of transceivers aboard planes, boats, or satellites relative to a target) and storing the information in computers. The reconstruction of radar and sonar patterns to something visible is also generally done with computers although the patterns stored in the computer can be “printed” to film and viewed as holograms.

Computer-synthesized film holograms are constructed this way using 3D ray-tracing algorithms (like Pixar uses to create animated worlds where lights and shadows are determined knowing where an object is defined) combined with “if a wavy light beam were following the path of the rays…” to calculate and store a holographic pattern. The stored pattern is transferred to film which can be viewed as a conventional hologram.

Everything that can be interpreted as waves is inherently interpretable holographically. Likewise, the counterpart of this is that the properties visible in holograms are inherently manifest in all things resolvable as waves.

I've seen enough special photographs made with regular cameras to leave the possibility of whether or not I made a holographic receiver open.


...

Dave Barnes
2011-Jun-04 Sat, 09:18
I want to introduce another property of holograms that apply to wave-o-centric world views.

A Hologram can be more than one Window -- More than one hologram can be put into the same “opening” on a single piece of film. If you look through this kind of hologram from one point of view (POV) you see one 3D world view. From a different perspective, you see a different 3D world view.
Imagine looking out of your living room window to see grass and trees, then stepping three feet to the right and seeing a landscape with snow and mountains.

If film were “grainless”, for example a recording was made using a material that changes orientation rather than a one-way chemical change, a single hologram film could have any number of window views – through the same “opening”.

This is a key characteristic of the holographic model. If you can represent and isolate more than one 3D space in one place, you are describing a mechanism for parallel universes.

I use the term parallel as opposed to "multiple universes" because the idea of multiple universes is usually used in the context of "if I make a right turn rather than a left turn, I'm in the right turn choice universe while the left turn me has a different future". Here, I'm talking about overlapping spaces vs. choice-outcome kinds of things.

The relevance for this should become clearer as more properties are described.

Here is an example of a hologram used to decode more than one scene or space:

Coexisting Spaces (http://hrvg.org/article_style1_videos3.php?getarticleid=167)


...

Dave Barnes
2011-Jun-04 Sat, 09:50
Time as a Fourth Dimension

While we often picture time stretching out like frames of a movie (left to right in Western cultures) we often describe time as if it were a fourth spatial (Euclidean) dimension. We may consider ourselves living in a place with height, width, depth, spread out across time. In this sense, time may be pictured “geometrically”.

Euclidean Time (http://hrvg.org/article_style1_videos3.php?getarticleid=163)

A Holographic Perspective of Time

A hologram may be constructed that portrays time as a matter of perspective. While the depiction below uses angles as perspectives, recall that information such as a special reference image, e.g. a set of numbers and letters, can serve to provide/decode the perspective.

Perspective Time (http://hrvg.org/article_style1_videos3.php?getarticleid=162)


...

Glenn B. Wheaton
2011-Jun-07 Tue, 23:17
Aloha Dave,

Nice replies and even more to investigate. I have been pondering time but I am not sure it is even relative except for perhaps a very small portion of a sec. My first question (ramble) would be whether this is scalable. Let’s say you have a large sheet of glass, say 6 feet by 8 feet. Coat it with an emulsion that can be developed much like film and then use a projector to focus your laser. Place your models (people) in the room with the glass and shoot it in total darkness then develop and fix it. Once completed you could place the glass in an empty room, turn out the lights and then use a laser strobe and you would be able to walk around to view the perspective of the capture. It could be a cheap experiment.

Glenn

Robert
2011-Jun-08 Wed, 09:09
Sounds like you are all on to a strange new invention!:eek:

Robert