Is the Universe a giant hologram?

DrRocket · Jan 19, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The first use of "information" that I'm aware of was the Bell's Theorem experiments.  Later, the term was used in Hawking radiation and the "teleportation" experiments.  Right now, it's more of a phenomenon and speculative.  Hence, the irony.A bit of background:  DeSitter was a contemporary of Einstein and proposed a different, generalized mathematical model of spacetime, compared to Einstein's.  DeSitter spacetime is consistent with expansion, without a cosmological constant.  Anti-DeSitter spacetime (AdS) is more similar than different but replaces the repulsive force with an attraction.  AdS is not considered an accurate representation.  Conceptually, the holographic principle is still mathematical, not physical.  Fascinating area of research in which I have revolutionary expectations, hopefully in my lifetime. Posted by SHU</DIV>To be a bit more precise, De Sitter discovered a solution to the Einstein field equations with a positive cosmological constant for a universe with no matter that results in an expanding universe.His contribution was therefore not an alternative to general relativity, but rather a solution to the equations of general relativity that exposed the potential for an expanding universe long before the observational work of Hubble that provided empirical evidence of the expanion.I am less optimistic than you that the holographic principle will eventually bear fruit.  But what will really count is not my "feeling" but real results or lack of them.  It is interestin conjecture, but the AdS/CFT correspondence that is in back of it remains conjecture ten years after it was proposed.  A proof would do much to change my mind.  I am frankly developing an uneasy feeling with regard to quite a bit of the more speculative attempts at quantum gravity.  M theory is based on a 1995 talk and paper by Ed Witten that provided a plausibility argument for the 5 competing versions of string theory in vogue at the time to in actuality be equivalent and just different aspects of a single theory -- M Theory.  But so far as I know, the "dictionary" providing a translation among those 5 string theories and a unifying M Theory has never been actually produced.  Similarly Maldecena's 1997 conjecture of a correspondence between anti-deSitter space and conformal field theory remains a conjecture, though many papers have addressed the implications if the conjecture is true.  It seems to me that a lot is hanging on the truth or falsehood of these conjectures.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 19, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The first use of "information" that I'm aware of was the Bell's Theorem experiments.  Later, the term was used in Hawking radiation and the "teleportation" experiments.  Right now, it's more of a phenomenon and speculative.  Hence, the irony.A bit of background:  DeSitter was a contemporary of Einstein and proposed a different, generalized mathematical model of spacetime, compared to Einstein's.  DeSitter spacetime is consistent with expansion, without a cosmological constant.  Anti-DeSitter spacetime (AdS) is more similar than different but replaces the repulsive force with an attraction.  AdS is not considered an accurate representation.  Conceptually, the holographic principle is still mathematical, not physical.  Fascinating area of research in which I have revolutionary expectations, hopefully in my lifetime. Posted by SHU</DIV>To be a bit more precise, De Sitter discovered a solution to the Einstein field equations with a positive cosmological constant for a universe with no matter that results in an expanding universe.His contribution was therefore not an alternative to general relativity, but rather a solution to the equations of general relativity that exposed the potential for an expanding universe long before the observational work of Hubble that provided empirical evidence of the expanion.I am less optimistic than you that the holographic principle will eventually bear fruit.  But what will really count is not my "feeling" but real results or lack of them.  It is interestin conjecture, but the AdS/CFT correspondence that is in back of it remains conjecture ten years after it was proposed.  A proof would do much to change my mind.  I am frankly developing an uneasy feeling with regard to quite a bit of the more speculative attempts at quantum gravity.  M theory is based on a 1995 talk and paper by Ed Witten that provided a plausibility argument for the 5 competing versions of string theory in vogue at the time to in actuality be equivalent and just different aspects of a single theory -- M Theory.  But so far as I know, the "dictionary" providing a translation among those 5 string theories and a unifying M Theory has never been actually produced.  Similarly Maldecena's 1997 conjecture of a correspondence between anti-deSitter space and conformal field theory remains a conjecture, though many papers have addressed the implications if the conjecture is true.  It seems to me that a lot is hanging on the truth or falsehood of these conjectures.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

docm · Jan 19, 2009

IOW much of todays physics as related to a TOE is more religion than anything else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

docm · Jan 19, 2009

IOW much of todays physics as related to a TOE is more religion than anything else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 19, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IOW much of todays physics as related to a TOE is more religion than anything else. Posted by docm</DIV>I am not sure I would describe it as religion, but there are certainly some gaps in the logic that will require some hard work to fill in rigorously.It is OK in research to make some assumptions and see what the implications are.  But then you need to go back and show that the assumptions are correct.  I think that perhaps more attention needs to be paid to filling in the gaps, since there seem to be some big gaps at the moment, and I am not certain how widely those gaps are recognized.It seems to me that a down side of the relatively recent rise of popularizations of research physics is that some of the speculative ideas have been turned into fact in the minds of the lay audience.  So you see people quoting string theory, 11-dimensional space, a foamy aspect of space at the scale of the Planck length and similar speculations as though they were established theory or even fact.  The lines between the two are becoming unfortunately blurred, and in the case of some of the ideas associated with M theory and the AdS/CFT correspondence I am not sure that even some of the younger researchers are fully aware of what is conjecture and what has been established.  I know that I am confused on some of these points.Apparently Hawkings concession that information is not lost when a black hole evaporates, relies on reasoning that includes the AdS/CFT correspondence,  It would be good if there were a proof that it is correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 19, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IOW much of todays physics as related to a TOE is more religion than anything else. Posted by docm</DIV>I am not sure I would describe it as religion, but there are certainly some gaps in the logic that will require some hard work to fill in rigorously.It is OK in research to make some assumptions and see what the implications are.  But then you need to go back and show that the assumptions are correct.  I think that perhaps more attention needs to be paid to filling in the gaps, since there seem to be some big gaps at the moment, and I am not certain how widely those gaps are recognized.It seems to me that a down side of the relatively recent rise of popularizations of research physics is that some of the speculative ideas have been turned into fact in the minds of the lay audience.  So you see people quoting string theory, 11-dimensional space, a foamy aspect of space at the scale of the Planck length and similar speculations as though they were established theory or even fact.  The lines between the two are becoming unfortunately blurred, and in the case of some of the ideas associated with M theory and the AdS/CFT correspondence I am not sure that even some of the younger researchers are fully aware of what is conjecture and what has been established.  I know that I am confused on some of these points.Apparently Hawkings concession that information is not lost when a black hole evaporates, relies on reasoning that includes the AdS/CFT correspondence,  It would be good if there were a proof that it is correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

docm · Jan 20, 2009

Religion in the sense of conjecture based on faith in math,  which is argueably incomplete itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

docm · Jan 20, 2009

Religion in the sense of conjecture based on faith in math,  which is argueably incomplete itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

R1 · Jan 20, 2009

We do not know how in the world string/M theory experiments can be performed. I think science, religion, and philosophy interact with each other.  It is  like 3 sets of Bose condensates in the same Petri dish. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

R1 · Jan 20, 2009

We do not know how in the world string/M theory experiments can be performed. I think science, religion, and philosophy interact with each other.  It is  like 3 sets of Bose condensates in the same Petri dish. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 20, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We do not know how in the world string/M theory experiments can be performed. I think science, religion, and philosophy interact with each other.  It is  like 3 sets of Bose condensates in the same Petri dish. Posted by john1r</DIV>First you need to figure out what string theory and M theory reall are, then produce a prediction that is no immediately contradicted by known experiments and one that is distinguishable from predictions of current quantum theories or general relativity.  Then and only then can you start to design an experiment to test the theories. There may in fact be some help from the LHC experiments.  This quote from a Wiki article  talks about such potential results (the links in the article may not work). "S. James Gates, Jr., Ph.D. strongly opposes the idea that string theory is not falsifiable: "So, the next time someone tells you that string theory is not testable, remind them of the AdS/CFT connection ..."[29]. AdS/CFT relates string theory to gauge theory, and allows contact with low energy experiments in quantum chromodynamics. This type of string theory, which only describes the strong interactions, is much less controversial today than string theories of everything[30]In addition, Gates points out that the grand unification natural in string theories of everything requires that the coupling constants of the four forces meet at one point under renormalization group rescaling. This is also a falsifiable statement, but it is not restricted to string theory, but is shared by grand unified theories.[31]. The LHC will be used both for testing AdS/CFT, and to check if the electroweakstrong unification does happen as predicted." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 20, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We do not know how in the world string/M theory experiments can be performed. I think science, religion, and philosophy interact with each other.  It is  like 3 sets of Bose condensates in the same Petri dish. Posted by john1r</DIV>First you need to figure out what string theory and M theory reall are, then produce a prediction that is no immediately contradicted by known experiments and one that is distinguishable from predictions of current quantum theories or general relativity.  Then and only then can you start to design an experiment to test the theories. There may in fact be some help from the LHC experiments.  This quote from a Wiki article  talks about such potential results (the links in the article may not work). "S. James Gates, Jr., Ph.D. strongly opposes the idea that string theory is not falsifiable: "So, the next time someone tells you that string theory is not testable, remind them of the AdS/CFT connection ..."[29]. AdS/CFT relates string theory to gauge theory, and allows contact with low energy experiments in quantum chromodynamics. This type of string theory, which only describes the strong interactions, is much less controversial today than string theories of everything[30]In addition, Gates points out that the grand unification natural in string theories of everything requires that the coupling constants of the four forces meet at one point under renormalization group rescaling. This is also a falsifiable statement, but it is not restricted to string theory, but is shared by grand unified theories.[31]. The LHC will be used both for testing AdS/CFT, and to check if the electroweakstrong unification does happen as predicted." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BoJangles · Jan 20, 2009

Is there enough room mathematically for a black hole to exist in this quantised universe with their immense densities?The numbers I seen look pretty small but is there enough room at this quantised level to fit all the information of a black hole?If so, what about the big bang singularity.Another question, is the universe is expanding over these points or with them.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

BoJangles · Jan 20, 2009

Is there enough room mathematically for a black hole to exist in this quantised universe with their immense densities?The numbers I seen look pretty small but is there enough room at this quantised level to fit all the information of a black hole?If so, what about the big bang singularity.Another question, is the universe is expanding over these points or with them.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

R1 · Jan 20, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First you need to figure out what string theory and M theory reall are, then produce a prediction that is no immediately contradicted by known experiments and one that is distinguishable from predictions of current quantum theories or general relativity.  Then and only then can you start to design an experiment to test the theories. There may in fact be some help from the LHC experiments.  This quote from a Wiki article  talks about such potential results (the links in the article may not work). "S. James Gates, Jr., Ph.D. strongly opposes the idea that string theory is not falsifiable: "So, the next time someone tells you that string theory is not testable, remind them of the AdS/CFT connection ..."[29]. AdS/CFT relates string theory to gauge theory, and allows contact with low energy experiments in quantum chromodynamics. This type of string theory, which only describes the strong interactions, is much less controversial today than string theories of everything[30]In addition, Gates points out that the grand unification natural in string theories of everything requires that the coupling constants of the four forces meet at one point under renormalization group rescaling. This is also a falsifiable statement, but it is not restricted to string theory, but is shared by grand unified theories.[31]. The LHC will be used both for testing AdS/CFT, and to check if the electroweakstrong unification does happen as predicted." Posted by DrRocket</DIV>thank you Dr. Rocket.and is this strong interaction string theory actually 1of the M 5 ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

R1 · Jan 20, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First you need to figure out what string theory and M theory reall are, then produce a prediction that is no immediately contradicted by known experiments and one that is distinguishable from predictions of current quantum theories or general relativity.  Then and only then can you start to design an experiment to test the theories. There may in fact be some help from the LHC experiments.  This quote from a Wiki article  talks about such potential results (the links in the article may not work). "S. James Gates, Jr., Ph.D. strongly opposes the idea that string theory is not falsifiable: "So, the next time someone tells you that string theory is not testable, remind them of the AdS/CFT connection ..."[29]. AdS/CFT relates string theory to gauge theory, and allows contact with low energy experiments in quantum chromodynamics. This type of string theory, which only describes the strong interactions, is much less controversial today than string theories of everything[30]In addition, Gates points out that the grand unification natural in string theories of everything requires that the coupling constants of the four forces meet at one point under renormalization group rescaling. This is also a falsifiable statement, but it is not restricted to string theory, but is shared by grand unified theories.[31]. The LHC will be used both for testing AdS/CFT, and to check if the electroweakstrong unification does happen as predicted." Posted by DrRocket</DIV>thank you Dr. Rocket.and is this strong interaction string theory actually 1of the M 5 ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

R1 · Jan 20, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is there enough room mathematically for a black hole to exist in this quantised universe with their immense densities?The numbers I seen look pretty small but is there enough room at this quantised level to fit all the information of a black hole?If so, what about the big bang singularity.Another question, is the universe is expanding over these points or with them.   Posted by Manwh0re</DIV> There is probably no time for singularites, until a better answer pops in.Singularity black holes have none of our time.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

R1 · Jan 20, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is there enough room mathematically for a black hole to exist in this quantised universe with their immense densities?The numbers I seen look pretty small but is there enough room at this quantised level to fit all the information of a black hole?If so, what about the big bang singularity.Another question, is the universe is expanding over these points or with them.   Posted by Manwh0re</DIV> There is probably no time for singularites, until a better answer pops in.Singularity black holes have none of our time.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SHU · Jan 21, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To be a bit more precise, De Sitter discovered a solution to the Einstein field equations with a positive cosmological constant for a universe with no matter that results in an expanding universe.His contribution was therefore not an alternative to general relativity, but rather a solution to the equations of general relativity that exposed the potential for an expanding universe long before the observational work of Hubble that provided empirical evidence of the expanion.I am less optimistic than you that the holographic principle will eventually bear fruit.  But what will really count is not my "feeling" but real results or lack of them.  It is interestin conjecture, but the AdS/CFT correspondence that is in back of it remains conjecture ten years after it was proposed.  A proof would do much to change my mind.  I am frankly developing an uneasy feeling with regard to quite a bit of the more speculative attempts at quantum gravity.  M theory is based on a 1995 talk and paper by Ed Witten that provided a plausibility argument for the 5 competing versions of string theory in vogue at the time to in actuality be equivalent and just different aspects of a single theory -- M Theory.  But so far as I know, the "dictionary" providing a translation among those 5 string theories and a unifying M Theory has never been actually produced.  Similarly Maldecena's 1997 conjecture of a correspondence between anti-deSitter space and conformal field theory remains a conjecture, though many papers have addressed the implications if the conjecture is true.  It seems to me that a lot is hanging on the truth or falsehood of these conjectures.  Posted by DrRocket</DIV> Absolutely, I'm enamoured of the implications more than the abstract foundations of the principle, itself, and looking way beyond the origional correspondance.  Then again, that abstraction plays right into it.  There is this "E=mc^2"  type of elegance to it, in principle.  So what if it's an ant trying to lift an elephant.  "AdSn = CFTn-1" does fit well on a T-shirt.

SHU · Jan 21, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To be a bit more precise, De Sitter discovered a solution to the Einstein field equations with a positive cosmological constant for a universe with no matter that results in an expanding universe.His contribution was therefore not an alternative to general relativity, but rather a solution to the equations of general relativity that exposed the potential for an expanding universe long before the observational work of Hubble that provided empirical evidence of the expanion.I am less optimistic than you that the holographic principle will eventually bear fruit.  But what will really count is not my "feeling" but real results or lack of them.  It is interestin conjecture, but the AdS/CFT correspondence that is in back of it remains conjecture ten years after it was proposed.  A proof would do much to change my mind.  I am frankly developing an uneasy feeling with regard to quite a bit of the more speculative attempts at quantum gravity.  M theory is based on a 1995 talk and paper by Ed Witten that provided a plausibility argument for the 5 competing versions of string theory in vogue at the time to in actuality be equivalent and just different aspects of a single theory -- M Theory.  But so far as I know, the "dictionary" providing a translation among those 5 string theories and a unifying M Theory has never been actually produced.  Similarly Maldecena's 1997 conjecture of a correspondence between anti-deSitter space and conformal field theory remains a conjecture, though many papers have addressed the implications if the conjecture is true.  It seems to me that a lot is hanging on the truth or falsehood of these conjectures.  Posted by DrRocket</DIV> Absolutely, I'm enamoured of the implications more than the abstract foundations of the principle, itself, and looking way beyond the origional correspondance.  Then again, that abstraction plays right into it.  There is this "E=mc^2"  type of elegance to it, in principle.  So what if it's an ant trying to lift an elephant.  "AdSn = CFTn-1" does fit well on a T-shirt.

R1 · Jan 22, 2009

It seems a string is being described like an event line, I mean like an event horizon in the shape of a line.  The line can either have loose ends or have its ends connected.I do not think the time dimension is being studied enough. I think there may even be more than one dimension of time.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

R1 · Jan 22, 2009

It seems a string is being described like an event line, I mean like an event horizon in the shape of a line.  The line can either have loose ends or have its ends connected.I do not think the time dimension is being studied enough. I think there may even be more than one dimension of time.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BoJangles · Jan 22, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is probably no time for singularites, until a better answer pops in.Singularity black holes have none of our time.  Posted by john1r</DIV> Hi johnr1 thanks for the response but im not sure i understand your answer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

BoJangles · Jan 22, 2009

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is probably no time for singularites, until a better answer pops in.Singularity black holes have none of our time.  Posted by john1r</DIV> Hi johnr1 thanks for the response but im not sure i understand your answer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -------------- Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... *** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research *** </div>

R1 · Jan 23, 2009

A singularity black hole seems to be in such an extremely altered spacetime...so extremely, that I am not sure if I am able to explain it or word it properly, but I can try.Not only is space in its proximity so different, but so is time.  Time in the altered space of the singularity is so extremely slow in its flow if it even flows at all.  This is such a highly altered state of time that over the many earth years life has been on earth, time in the altered space of a singularity hole should appear to us as hardly passed if at all.  This puts the singularity in our past, given the large amount of time that time has passed on planet earth. (For me, the current confusion is with the descriptions I am learning of a string as comparable to an event horizon line, whether loose or connected, string line or string loop.  So a differentiation came about to distinguish this from a cosmological singularity hole.&nbsp

Is the Universe a giant hologram?

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

docm

Guest

docm

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

docm

Guest

docm

Guest

R1

Guest

R1

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

R1

Guest

R1

Guest

R1

Guest

R1

Guest

SHU

Guest

SHU

Guest

R1

Guest

R1

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

R1

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page