But it sounds cool

http://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

In two papers posted on the arXiv repository, Yoshifumi Hyakutake of Ibaraki University in Japan and his colleagues now provide, if not an actual proof, at least compelling evidence that Maldacena’s conjecture is true.

although this helps!

god bless eli5

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sl6jf/eli5_the_theory_that_the_universe_is_a_hologram/

I don’t understand it either, and I’m not even going to try, ‘cos it all sounds too far-fetched. If the physics establishment eventually says it’s correct, I might have another peep at it.

If the physics establishment eventually says it’s correct

they basically have … .they’ve been running with the assumption it’s correct ever since it was proposed and vetted.

Dropbear said:

If the physics establishment eventually says it’s correct

they basically have … .they’ve been running with the assumption it’s correct ever since it was proposed and vetted.

I doubt it. Looks like a variant of string theory, and that’s certainly not accepted as “correct”.

Bubblecar said:

Dropbear said:

If the physics establishment eventually says it’s correct

they basically have … .they’ve been running with the assumption it’s correct ever since it was proposed and vetted.

I doubt it. Looks like a variant of string theory, and that’s certainly not accepted as “correct”.

read the article.. you know not of what you argue..

>read the article.. you know not of what you argue..

I’ve read the article, which presents the idea as a version of string theory.

>>I don’t understand it either

That’s understandable, these chaps are wrestling with know unknowns knowing that their machinations will be neither standable or understandable to the bulk of secular science punters.
However it is good to know where the thoughts of our scientists at the coal face are heading without actually understanding the mechanisms.
I’ll bail out if they start using ANCIENTS or LIFE though.

This holographic theory is definitely part of the string franchise:

Holographic principle

The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard ‘t Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind who combined his ideas with previous ones of ‘t Hooft and Charles Thorn. As pointed out by Raphael Bousso, Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Who among mainstream physicists arn’t betting the house on ST these days?

Dropbear said:

Who among mainstream physicists arn’t betting the house on ST these days?

String theory is still regarded as a speculative alternative to mainstream physics.

Bubblecar said:

Dropbear said:

Who among mainstream physicists arn’t betting the house on ST these days?

String theory is still regarded as a speculative alternative to mainstream physics.

It’s not 1974 anymore ;)

Some notable critics of string theory: Richard Feynman, Roger Penrose, Peter Woit, Lee Smolin, Philip Warren Anderson, Sheldon Glashow, Lawrence Krauss, Carlo Rovelli

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

Some notable critics of string theory: Richard Feynman, Roger Penrose, Peter Woit, Lee Smolin, Philip Warren Anderson, Sheldon Glashow, Lawrence Krauss, Carlo Rovelli

they’re all dead…

well..

at least one of them

Put it this way, I’m never going to understand string theory anyway, but as long it’s not the standard, accepted model, I don’t even have to pretend I can make sense of it :)

Bubblecar said:

Put it this way, I’m never going to understand string theory anyway, but as long it’s not the standard, accepted model, I don’t even have to pretend I can make sense of it :)

well yes, quite

reading that article, I reached a zen like stage 5 acceptance state that modern physics is beyond the understanding of 99.99% of the population now … and they can basically say anything they like and we’d never be able to disprove them..

given that it’s well known that peer review is basically broken, it’s time to head to the redoubt.

Only Feynman’s dead, from that list. Probably the most vocal string critic there is Peter Woit:

Peter Woit (/ˈwɔɪt/; born September 11, 1957) is an American theoretical physicist known for his criticism of string theory in his book Not Even Wrong, and his widely-read blog of the same name. Woit is a Departmental Computer Administrator and Senior Lecturer in Discipline in the Mathematics department at Columbia University.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Woit

You know a theory’s going to be hard work when this is the sort of picture they give you, to simplify things:

see it’s all starting to make sense ;)

Don’t know much about string, other than from the Goodies, but the idea of ‘dimensions’ I find interesting as applies to the origins of this universe, and other things like gravity and time.

It appears to me ‘something’ can be carried via dimensional shifts, though not ‘carried’ as we’d maybe understand it within our physics, but more importantly (for us) something is ‘extinguished’ (re causal connections for us, to be materially understandable), and maybe strangely it is what is extinguished of a previously or elsewhere something else that makes another something else or elsewhere possible. I am not sure the extent these things are conjecturable or mathematically representationally possible, as it may be that they are impossible and ‘the wall’ is what makes the modest insight possible.

Well we are past the atom as being the building block, we are now finding the building blocks for atoms.
Once we discover the ONE building block of LIFE the single particle that quarks and bosons are made of we can then start to look at teleporting.
Getting inside the properties of that fundamental object and changing it’s positional awareness property to somewhere in the alpha quadrant we wont need to worry about dilithium crystals and warp speed, we’ll be able to teleport to infinity and beyond which is probably how the ANCIENTS got here.

I think we may tend to think of dimensions and ‘containing’ something, but this may be misleading. Like we may think of this universe as ‘containing’ in some sense, but as a generalizing idea from the physics we experience it’s probably wrongheaded.

transition said:

I think we may tend to think of dimensions and ‘containing’ something, but this may be misleading. Like we may think of this universe as ‘containing’ in some sense, but as a generalizing idea from the physics we experience it’s probably wrongheaded.

what?

Peak Warming Man said:

Well we are past the atom as being the building block, we are now finding the building blocks for atoms.
Once we discover the ONE building block of LIFE the single particle that quarks and bosons are made of we can then start to look at teleporting.
Getting inside the properties of that fundamental object and changing it’s positional awareness property to somewhere in the alpha quadrant we wont need to worry about dilithium crystals and warp speed, we’ll be able to teleport to infinity and beyond which is probably how the ANCIENTS got here.

I get this suspiciuos feeling that only electrons are fundamental. For this to be a reality then it would support the holographic universe theory……

Dropbear said:

transition said:

I think we may tend to think of dimensions and ‘containing’ something, but this may be misleading. Like we may think of this universe as ‘containing’ in some sense, but as a generalizing idea from the physics we experience it’s probably wrongheaded.

what?

he is saying that a dimension does not have to be timelike or spacelike, I believe..

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Dropbear said:

transition said:

I think we may tend to think of dimensions and ‘containing’ something, but this may be misleading. Like we may think of this universe as ‘containing’ in some sense, but as a generalizing idea from the physics we experience it’s probably wrongheaded.

what?

he is saying that a dimension does not have to be timelike or spacelike, I believe..

I’ve got no idea what he’s saying … so the communication is rather pointless

>he is saying that a dimension does not have to be timelike or spacelike, I believe..

Comes close, enough.

>I’ve got no idea what he’s saying … so the communication is rather pointless

Poor bear, welcome to your own thread.

transition said:

>I’ve got no idea what he’s saying … so the communication is rather pointless

Poor bear, welcome to your own thread.

shrug.. spouting pseudo-intellectual bullshit to sound clever is a waste of bytes.

Bubblecar said:

This holographic theory is definitely part of the string franchise:

Holographic principle

The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard ‘t Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind who combined his ideas with previous ones of ‘t Hooft and Charles Thorn. As pointed out by Raphael Bousso, Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Not sure how stuff gets encoded on a boundary when the boundary has no physical existence.

Soso said:

Bubblecar said:

This holographic theory is definitely part of the string franchise:

Holographic principle

The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard ‘t Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind who combined his ideas with previous ones of ‘t Hooft and Charles Thorn. As pointed out by Raphael Bousso, Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Not sure how stuff gets encoded on a boundary when the boundary has no physical existence.

What do you mean?

Dropbear said:

Soso said:

Bubblecar said:

This holographic theory is definitely part of the string franchise:

Holographic principle

The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard ‘t Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind who combined his ideas with previous ones of ‘t Hooft and Charles Thorn. As pointed out by Raphael Bousso, Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

Not sure how stuff gets encoded on a boundary when the boundary has no physical existence.

What do you mean?

I mean a boundary of a region is a concept not an object.

Soso said:

Dropbear said:

Soso said:

Not sure how stuff gets encoded on a boundary when the boundary has no physical existence.

What do you mean?

I mean a boundary of a region is a concept not an object.

Go walking off the edge of a cliff, the result may not only be conceptual.

Dropbear said:

Soso said:

Dropbear said:

What do you mean?

I mean a boundary of a region is a concept not an object.

Go walking off the edge of a cliff, the result may not only be conceptual.

trying to remember the lyric of the Hail Mary..

roughbarked said:

Dropbear said:

Soso said:

I mean a boundary of a region is a concept not an object.

Go walking off the edge of a cliff, the result may not only be conceptual.

trying to remember the lyric of the Hail Mary..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLOki2hdsdQ

Soso said:

Not sure how stuff gets encoded on a boundary when the boundary has no physical existence.

physical existence is a set of interacting energetic boundaries that define relative limitations.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Soso said:

Not sure how stuff gets encoded on a boundary when the boundary has no physical existence.

physical existence is a set of interacting energetic boundaries that define relative limitations.

What?

Dropbear said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Soso said:

Not sure how stuff gets encoded on a boundary when the boundary has no physical existence.

physical existence is a set of interacting energetic boundaries that define relative limitations.

What?

Inhale, Exhale..

Dropbear said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Soso said:

Not sure how stuff gets encoded on a boundary when the boundary has no physical existence.

physical existence is a set of interacting energetic boundaries that define relative limitations.

What?

finally, it all makes sense… Riff-in-Thyme = John Devers

Dropbear said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Soso said:

Not sure how stuff gets encoded on a boundary when the boundary has no physical existence.

physical existence is a set of interacting energetic boundaries that define relative limitations.

What?

kinda comes down to what is a particle. to have an observable physical existence requires atoms. the nature(boundaries) of the quarks that make up the heavier particles would be different if the electron, the particle that describes the limitations of the particle the quarks compose, were of a different balance.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Dropbear said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

physical existence is a set of interacting energetic boundaries that define relative limitations.

What?

kinda comes down to what is a particle. to have an observable physical existence requires atoms. the nature(boundaries) of the quarks that make up the heavier particles would be different if the electron, the particle that describes the limitations of the particle the quarks compose, were of a different balance.

I’m afraid I don’t follow you…

Soso said:

I mean a boundary of a region is a concept not an object.

an object is a subjective concept.

Dropbear said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Dropbear said:

What?

kinda comes down to what is a particle. to have an observable physical existence requires atoms. the nature(boundaries) of the quarks that make up the heavier particles would be different if the electron, the particle that describes the limitations of the particle the quarks compose, were of a different balance.

I’m afraid I don’t follow you…

Soso referred to boundaries needing a physical existence to have information in them. Physical ‘objects’ are an interpretation of perception. The reality of the universe is the boundaries between energetic forms….

>shrug.. spouting pseudo-intellectual bullshit to sound clever is a waste of bytes.

Generally ‘pseudo’ is used in that way, yes.

For the bear, I should have added a :), was being lighthearted. I have no idea what be ‘over there’, to us a ‘nowhere’, on the other side, you know. Doubtful anybody understands it, whatever it is, to the extent it is or may be called an it.

transition said:

For the bear, I should have added a :), was being lighthearted. I have no idea what be ‘over there’, to us a ‘nowhere’, on the other side, you know. Doubtful anybody understands it, whatever it is, to the extent it is or may be called an it.

unfortunately you are right..

I think THAT level of science is beyond the understanding of most people now.

Dropbear said:

transition said:

For the bear, I should have added a :), was being lighthearted. I have no idea what be ‘over there’, to us a ‘nowhere’, on the other side, you know. Doubtful anybody understands it, whatever it is, to the extent it is or may be called an it.

unfortunately you are right..

I think THAT level of science is beyond the understanding of most people now.

This is true of a great many disciplines… It’s the reason you need to spend you life becoming an ‘expert’

trouble is, it takes decades of education now, before you can become productive..

Dropbear said:

trouble is, it takes decades of education now, before you can become productive..

And often that productivity is just educating the next lot where you are now, um is this perpetual motion?

Dropbear said:

trouble is, it takes decades of education now, before you can become productive..

I’m not sure it’s decades…

doctoral students are doing “real science” and that’s only after they have completed their pass degrees

but a relatively smart physics student could after 4 years be in a PhD program and 3 years later be looking at post doctoral work so in 7 years they are working at the very pointy end of their chosen field.

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

trouble is, it takes decades of education now, before you can become productive..

I’m not sure it’s decades…

doctoral students are doing “real science” and that’s only after they have completed their pass degrees

but a relatively smart physics student could after 4 years be in a PhD program and 3 years later be looking at post doctoral work so in 7 years they are working at the very pointy end of their chosen field.

IME, the post docs play too much Xbone (albeit, from a uni that is more akin to a TAFE…).

The world will keep spinning without string theory etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldacena_conjecture

In theoretical physics, the anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence, sometimes called Maldacena duality or gauge/gravity duality, is a conjectured relationship between two kinds of physical theories. On one side of the correspondence are conformal field theories (CFT) which are quantum field theories, including theories similar to the Yang–Mills theories that describe elementary particles. On the other are anti-de Sitter spaces (AdS) which are used in theories of quantum gravity, formulated in terms of string theory or M-theory.

The duality represents a major advance in our understanding of string theory and quantum gravity. This is because it provides a non-perturbative formulation of string theory with certain boundary conditions and because it is the most successful realization of the holographic principle, an idea in quantum gravity originally proposed by Gerard ‘t Hooft and improved and promoted by Leonard Susskind.

It also provides a powerful toolkit for studying strongly coupled quantum field theories. Much of the usefulness of the duality results from the fact that it is a strong-weak duality: when the fields of the quantum field theory are strongly interacting, the ones in the gravitational theory are weakly interacting and thus more mathematically tractable. This fact has been used to study many aspects of nuclear and condensed matter physics by translating problems in those subjects into more mathematically tractable problems in string theory.

The AdS/CFT correspondence was first proposed by Juan Maldacena in late 1997. Important aspects of the correspondence were elaborated in articles by Steven Gubser, Igor Klebanov, and Alexander Markovich Polyakov, and by Edward Witten. By 2010, Maldacena’s article had over 7000 citations, becoming the most highly cited article in the field of high energy physics.

where is KJW when you need a mathematical formula?

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

trouble is, it takes decades of education now, before you can become productive..

I’m not sure it’s decades…

doctoral students are doing “real science” and that’s only after they have completed their pass degrees

but a relatively smart physics student could after 4 years be in a PhD program and 3 years later be looking at post doctoral work so in 7 years they are working at the very pointy end of their chosen field.

pretty sure doctoral students are doing this holographic shit ..

> compelling evidence that Maldacena’s conjecture is true.

Hold on a moment. Are people confusing the “Holographic Principle” with the “AdS/CFT correspondence”?