The Holographic Principle

[usagi]

The most stunning advancement in Physics since Quantum Mechanics is the Holographic Principle.

The Holographic Principle states that no three-dimensional space can contain more information than that which can be expressed on it's boundary. Similar to a hologram. Imagine it thus; when looking out your window, everything you see is filtered through your window. This window is like an imaginary outer boundary to everything in the universe visible from your window. But the Holographic Principle operates like x-ray vision. Every bit of information possible is expressible on the boundary.

My question to you then is, what you think the implications of the Holographic Principle are. To me they are both strange and confusing. I'm particularly interested in gravity and the curvature of space. Since energy itself warps space, it would seem that the energy exists locally to that space. On the other hand, it has interesting implications regarding quantum entanglement which I have only glossed over so far.

Another proposal; the Schwartzchild radius is directly proportional to the amount of information contained in a black hole. This seems obvious at first, since it's proportional to the mass of the black hole. What I am proposing though is that the Schwartzchild radius is in fact physical proof of the Holographic Principle.

[mpfrank]

The most stunning advancement in Physics since Quantum Mechanics is the Holographic Principle.

The Holographic Principle states that no three-dimensional space can contain more information than that which can be expressed on it's boundary. Similar to a hologram. Imagine it thus; when looking out your window, everything you see is filtered through your window. This window is like an imaginary outer boundary to everything in the universe visible from your window. But the Holographic Principle operates like x-ray vision. Every bit of information possible is expressible on the boundary.

My question to you then is, what you think the implications of the Holographic Principle are. To me they are both strange and confusing. I'm particularly interested in gravity and the curvature of space. Since energy itself warps space, it would seem that the energy exists locally to that space. On the other hand, it has interesting implications regarding quantum entanglement which I have only glossed over so far.

Another proposal; the Schwartzchild radius is directly proportional to the amount of information contained in a black hole. This seems obvious at first, since it's proportional to the mass of the black hole. What I am proposing though is that the Schwartzchild radius is in fact physical proof of the Holographic Principle.

Actually, the information (entropy) contained in a black hole is proportional to its surface area, as was discovered by Bekenstein.  Area goes as radius squared, so the radius of a Schwartzchild black hole is actually proportional to the square root of its information content.

But, what does this have to do with Bitcoin?

[myrkul]

But, what does this have to do with Bitcoin?

Note the thread's location, and the description of this sub-forum.

[mpfrank]

But, what does this have to do with Bitcoin?

Note the thread's location, and the description of this sub-forum.

Yeah, I think you moved it while I was replying. 

[hashman]

" amount of information in X ...  "

Sorry, this is just not science in my opinion.  Sure, a HD might contain 1TB.. but what about the positions of every atom  in there every nanosecond?  That would be a lot more information.   

"Information"  is context dependent.  If that's your interest stick with Claude Shannon and avoid Hawking / Berkenstein. 

[Luno]

" amount of information in X ...  "

Sorry, this is just not science in my opinion.  Sure, a HD might contain 1TB.. but what about the positions of every atom  in there every nanosecond?  That would be a lot more information.  

"Information"  is context dependent.  If that's your interest stick with Claude Shannon and avoid Hawking / Berkenstein.  

Well the world is digital after all:

The Planck scale is the smallest size for any force or energy to exist in. So the boundary spheres area in imaginatory Planck scale bits, contains enough information to describe everything inside; matter energy force momentum and the minds of all of us.

It puzzling that the numbers fit, but it is not proof of if it as real.

[myrkul]

But, what does this have to do with Bitcoin?

Note the thread's location, and the description of this sub-forum.

Yeah, I think you moved it while I was replying. 

Once again showing a lack of reading comprehension. Note that I do not have "staff" or "global moderator" under my name.

I could not have moved it.

[Third Way]

I really like this idea of an electric/holographic universe.

[elux]

If you want to get up to speed on this stuff, and have an hour to spare,
there's an excellent lecture by Leonard Susskind that is pretty understandable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

Drats, was going to post exactly this video. His entire Stanford Continuing Studies lecture series is... super awesome.

This Stanford Continuing Studies course is a collection of classes and lectures that is the minimalist approach to Theoretical Physics.
A student following this curriculum would achieve a solid understanding of Modern Physics in an optimized manner. It is the minimum that is required to begin understanding theoretical physics.

In Professor Susskind's words ...  "A number of years ago I became aware of the large number of physics enthusiasts out there who have no venue to learn modern physics and cosmology.  Fat advanced textbooks are not suitable to people who have no teacher to ask questions of, and the popular literature does not go deeply enough to satisfy these curious people.  So I started a series of courses on modern physics at Stanford University where I am a professor of physics.  The courses are specifically aimed at people who know, or once knew, a bit of algebra and calculus, but are more or less beginners."

I started with (and followed the entirety of) Susskind's Cosmology Lectures, which are extra super awesome.

[Luno]

If you want to get up to speed on this stuff, and have an hour to spare,
there's an excellent lecture by Leonard Susskind that is pretty understandable: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

Drats, was going to post exactly this video. His entire Stanford Continuing Studies lecture series is... super awesome.

I started with (and followed the entirety of) Susskind's Cosmology Lectures, which are extra super awesome.

Susskind good suggestion. It will also be a lesson in condescending lecturing. He is really one of the most brilliant and at the same time the meanest asshole in the universe. When you watch his lectures, pay attention to his reaction when he is asked a stupid question from a student.

[elux]

Susskind good suggestion. It will also be a lesson in condescending lecturing. He is really one of the most brilliant and at the same time the meanest asshole in the universe. When you watch his lectures, pay attention to his reaction when he is asked a stupid question from a student.

Not so. He's quite friendly here, IIRC. He won't entertain a wrong idea, he will eat a cookie, correct it; pace around for a bit, and carry on.

Either the years have mellowed him, or he simply saves his guns for deserving targets. Stephen Hawking comes first to mind.


Speaking of cosmology, found this awesome piece of software yesterday: http://en.spaceengine.org/

I don't think any description of mine can fully do it justice...

Video: A trip from Earth to Sgr A* | (The Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way)

[Luno]

Susskind good suggestion. It will also be a lesson in condescending lecturing. He is really one of the most brilliant and at the same time the meanest asshole in the universe. When you watch his lectures, pay attention to his reaction when he is asked a stupid question from a student.

Not so. He's quite friendly here, IIRC. He won't entertain a wrong idea, he will eat a cookie, correct it; pace around for a bit, and carry on.

Either the years have mellowed him, or he simply saves his guns for deserving targets. Stephen Hawking comes first to mind.

That's good to hear, He is intense and his "life is too short for bull shit"  attitude is charming.

physics got the whole pallete of characters. Pennrose is like a cross between Mr. Bean and the side kick from Indiana Jones movies, but also very mellow and respectfull.

Holger Bech Nielsen is everybodys high school  excentric math teacher. I could go on..

[usagi]

The Planck scale is the smallest size for any force or energy to exist in.

Actually no -- the planck scale is simply the smallest observable scale. The reason has to do once again with black holes and the holographic principle. Say we accelerate a particle (in a particle accelerator) with so much energy that it would smash to bits on the Planck scale. Before that would happen, the energy of the particle would create a very small black hole. This black hole would simply get bigger the more energy you put into it. So in other words, we can never observe anything smaller than the Planck scale, and even "at" the Planck scale is going to be several orders of magnitude over and above what we can do now. But there is a hard limit because of that.

It's a little like death -- no one knows what happens when you die because no one can see the other side and come back.

[grondilu]

It's indeed a very profound and revolutionary concept.  I would lie if I tell that I understand it in any substantial way, but the very little I know is very appealing.  In particular, I like the fact that it is related to the very interesting work of Erik Verlinde and his entropic interpretation of gravity.

[Luno]

The Planck scale is the smallest size for any force or energy to exist in.

Actually no -- the planck scale is simply the smallest observable scale. The reason has to do once again with black holes and the holographic principle. Say we accelerate a particle (in a particle accelerator) with so much energy that it would smash to bits on the Planck scale. Before that would happen, the energy of the particle would create a very small black hole. This black hole would simply get bigger the more energy you put into it. So in other words, we can never observe anything smaller than the Planck scale, and even "at" the Planck scale is going to be several orders of magnitude over and above what we can do now. But there is a hard limit because of that.

It's a little like death -- no one knows what happens when you die because no one can see the other side and come back.

Interesting, but simmilary, you can argue that as black holes of this size evaporate very quickly so even if we can't measure anything at that scale because you would destroy the experiment, it is hard to imagine that anything can exist of a size smaller than the Planck scale and at a higher energy and still be considered to be in our universe as it would othervise evaporate. Quantum granularity also applies to the Higgs field as i understand it, so there might be a scale limit under which gravity, i.e. our universe, does'nt exist!

If Einstein still lived and had bothered with Quantum Mechanics, he would just have called it another veil of God.

But it is'nt a hinder to the Holographic Universe as less "bit resolution" on the event horizon is matched by less resolution in our 3D world.

One interesting point of a Holographic Universe is that the "real world" is on a surface, 2D+time, which actually makes string and M-theory a much better fit!

I started to write the following, because I was trying to speculate on your point. However as I wrote I remembered that the following is completely un related as the scale is completely wrong:

---------
I attended Holger Bech Nielsens last lecture as a tutor in October last year, and at the end of the lecture he entertained with one of his fringe theories:

Higgs bozons might exist in the wild and account for dark matter. They would be held in check by dark energy so they did'nt collapse back into the Higgs field. He said he had estimated  these globuls size to be around 20-25mm. So his suggestion is that dark matter is generated if energies are high enough. If LHC started to make them, I would buy one to play with.

---------

[marcus_of_augustus]

It's indeed a very profound and revolutionary concept.  I would lie if I tell that I understand it in any substantial way, but the very little I know is very appealing.  In particular, I like the fact that it is related to the very interesting work of Erik Verlinde and his entropic interpretation of gravity.

Interesting indeed.

Anybody got some links to state of art Entropic Gravity theories? (Particularly interested to know if there are any GR Kerr solutions developments/formulations using Entropic Gravity.)

[lebing]

For those that find this theory interesting, I highly recommend the book http://www.amazon.com/Holographic-Universe-Revolutionary-Theory-Reality/dp/0062014102

He does a truly amazing job of weaving different disciplines together to show what the implications of this theory are

[grondilu]

There's no experimental evidence (nor is there a theoretical requirement) that the information is arranged holographically on the surface of a black hole.

I think that's part of the reason why the holographic principle is called a principle.

[lebing]

Incidentally, the term "holographic" is somewhat misleading. There's no experimental evidence (nor is there a theoretical requirement) that the information is arranged holographically on the surface of a black hole.

So don't be distracted by the terminology. It's just a "popular" way to convey the concept that the information capacity of a 3-D object is proportional to its surface area rather than to its volume.

Michael Talbot actually goes into alot of detail about how our memories are stored and form holographically and that the nature of the universe is specifically holographic (similar to a fractal). I would be interested in understanding from your perspective why you see the terminology as a distraction.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Incidentally, the term "holographic" is somewhat misleading. There's no experimental evidence (nor is there a theoretical requirement) that the information is arranged holographically on the surface of a black hole.

So don't be distracted by the terminology. It's just a "popular" way to convey the concept that the information capacity of a 3-D object is proportional to its surface area rather than to its volume.

I agree, but it is a nice succinct way of conveying the crux of the nature of Laplacian pde type solutions, i.e. complete knowledge on the boundary gives complete knowledge throughout the domain.