Gravity is half spin hyperdimensional vector torsion. I have decided to accept “half spin torsion” as “vortex” and see gravity as the torsion interference along a G <timespace> dimensionality.
There are other dimensionality!
The dimensions are like origami, not parallel universes, however the relationships are as though such (all origami pieces then hyperdimensionality relate.)
If we call the underlying “universal potential” and whatever we think our universe as, is a plane for hyperdimensional coordinates, much of this will begin to make sense.
Gravity (and space time) is a “universal field” that “falls”
Around the distributed mass (vector torsions of mass particles) and mass particles are universal potential (same stuff as measured energy in a photon) is half spin vector locked discrete amounts.
Sub-atomic particles may then be discrete spin lock configurations and not distinct in any other way.
This would make the Higgs particle a lie, and the Higgs field this deformation of gravitational surface area.
Just what I’ve come up with. Existential reality (universal potential distributing) is holographic and gravity is half spin vector torsion on a plane of universal existence.
Like matter verses anti-matter? If so I think this has actually been considered by physicists hence we tested to ensure that anti-matter responds to gravity in the same way as matter.
If anit-matter had shown anti-gravity effects then gravity may have been just some imbalance of forces in the universe, but it doesn't appear to be that way.
As a non expert who's just curious about science but also tries to talk like a normal person, from what I can tell holography really seems like it's now the leading candidate to be the next big conceptual revolution in physics.
There's not necessarily any breakthrough right around the corner and we shouldn't rush to coronation preemptively, but there's a lot of physics "voting with their feet" for holography as the article says, and I think it's officially time to start getting hyped. It could have sanity-restoring answers to questions of quantum weirdness, albeit at the rather expensive cost of giving up even more on our day to day intuitions about space and time in favor of an apparently informational substrate.
String theory had a generation of great science communicators writing its books and singing its praises, but holography doesn't yet have equivalent public champions, and I hope that's something that changes sooner than later.
No string theory (10d) or m theory (11d) map to lower dimensions (eg 4d) via (generalisation of) Kaluza Klein compactification. Vector boson (eg maxwell or Yang mills) are internal degree la of freedom-> 6/7d graviton becomes a photon/ gluon.
There’s holography in string theory: AdS/CFT but this rather maps 4d super Yang mills (on the boundary of AdS5) in an AdS5xS5 background: which is one holography correspondence we know works.
Holography is much more common, but we only really understand it on hyperbolic spaces.
Also since it has a theory at strong coupling on one side we cannot really do calculation on that side and verify it.
I don't think the distinction between holography and string theory is as clean as you're making it. The vague idea of holography predates string theory, but most of the working examples we have of holography come from string theory. That's what AdS/CFT is: It's an explicitly holographic description of superstring theory in an anti-Desitter space. It's frankly bizarre that the author of this article doesn't mention that fact. I suspect we are seeing a popular science rebranding of string theory without the word strings.
I didn't intend to assert a clean distinction, you're exactly right about its connection to string theory. What I mean is that String Theory Writ Large enjoyed a lot of popular esteem in the 00s and 2010s in public communication as being our potential new framework for what lies beneath the quantum world, but string theory is huge in and of itself.
It's more a difference of emphasis (holography in particular) than something that's outside the scope of string theory.
> String theory had a generation of great science communicators writing its books and singing its praises...
I would argue that has done more harm than good. Strong media personalities shouting "the next big breakthrough is here!" followed by 25 years of zero practical results have not done good things for public perception of field of physics. A layperson could be mistaken for assuming the field is literally regressing.
Well the reason I couldn't tell if you were aware is because they aren't synonyms and your comment is perfectly reasonable, but I picked up an (incorrect, it seems) vibe that you thought they were unrelated. Which, they kind of are! It's a fairly interesting story how it came about as a property of string theory but appears to be leaving it behind.
> Holography implies that you can do that — reconstruct every fold, vessel, and neuron in three dimensions — without actually looking inside. Simply photographing the surface of the brain somehow suffices.
Gah I am not a fan of pop-sci simplifications like this for the sake of a soundbite. The author goes onto explain how no, a picture is not enough, you need to actually measure the distortion of spacetime at the surface.
I know what you mean and I think you're right, but I take it as the cost of doing business when trying to turn frontier physics into layperson analogies. You're not going to use an analogy to successfully complete a calculation of black hole entropy, you're going to use it to convey the high level intuition that "stuff on inside = stuff on boundary".
Because if we litigate the imperfections of analogies all day long, then you're going to react to videos titled "black holes described at five levels of difficulty" by saying the first four levels were all wrong, which may in a sense be technically true but not in the spirit of the exercise.
It's okay as long as they call it out, but the author doesn't and instead states it like a fact. They could have easily caveated it with "but a camera that can detect magnetic and gravitational fields" or something. The analogy is fine, but it's not presented as one.
> Consider a video game sun passing behind a video game tree. The sun pixels touch the tree pixels directly, yet the tree does not burst into flames. This is because the sun pixels are independent of the tree pixels.
With apologies to Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such an explanation.
Just as acceleration through space causes [the same effect as] gravity, could regular gravity be the movement through TIME?
Could gravity be a facet of time as electricity is to magnetism and vice versa? and the reason we cannot "isolate" gravity is because it's interwoven with time?
But then it would be weird that photos who don't experience time are affected by gravity..
When I read "But holography really starts to bite only after..." my LLM-dar goes off. Everything I read up to that point was comprehensible, but man, I have developed a shudder reaction to any language suggesting AI was involved ibn its creation.
I find AI written stuff to be hard to read. Part of my career is being a writer and I take great pride in my outout. AI written materials is a slog because you can see how it's pumping out words to hit various metrics rather than what's needed for the task.
LOL, same. Usually I watch with a great, much deserved attention, but sometimes I need to work on something so I replay videos, and his voice, with such a fantastic cadence and soothing registry, talking about things I deeply enjoy and appreciate, makes work easier and better.
My nitpick is with something the author said in passing about Hawking.
Yes, around 1970 Hawking and the scientific community at large still used to believe nothing could escape a black hole, and between 1971 and 1973 Hawking along with Penrose and others expanded their evolving understanding and consequences of of Albert Einstein's breakthrough work.
But then Hawking argued back the opposite case, which in simple terms means that some things can, indeed, escape an event horizon. In fact, name dropping Hawking just to mention his views as they stood before his 1973 work, and his 1974 model of Hawking radiation seems dangerously incomplete journalistic reporting.
In 1974 Hawking formulated what we now know as Hawking Radiation, which is the *exact opposite* of what was previously believed about the impossibility of anything coming back from a black hole. Whilst still not conclusively proven as a physical fact, this did win him the Special Fundamental Physics Prize in 2013. specifically for his discovery of Hawking radiation from black holes and his deep contributions to quantum gravity and quantum aspects of the early universe.
I find myself not agreeing with a lot of nitpicks, but this is a good one! The article says "Contrary to what Stephen Hawking argued, black holes are not inescapable prisons." But information escaping black holes is named after him! He definitely, in the full scope of his career, was perfectly agreeable to the idea of information escaping black holes.
Hawking found that energy/mass can escape but the information remains destroyed. You can't run a black hole backwards in time and reconstruct the matter that created it and hawking radiation bears no resemblance to anything that was ever beyond the horizon.
Shucks, you're right. Well, mostly. I misunderstood Hawking radiation as a solution when it actually contributed to the motivation for holding that info was not recoverable. However, he did famously "concede" a bet on the question that he believed was resolved against this belief and it's still the case that his belief by the end of his life was not that it was a "prison" the way the article suggests.
Not sure I follow your comment exactly, perhaps I am misunderstanding it but Hawking radiation doesn't involve anything escaping a black hole.
The radiation never originates from within the event horizon. Furthermore the radiation itself does not encode any information about what fell into the black hole apart from the electric charge, angular momentum, and mass (all of which must remain conserved).
We can play with words all day, but in the sense of a particle entering into the event horizon of a black hole and then at some point in the future exiting from inside of the event horizon, that simply never happens and Hawking radiation does not propose that.
I don't know the slightest about this but... That list looks like it is supposed to be limited but that sounds like infinitely more information than zero?
>> Not sure I follow your comment exactly, perhaps I am misunderstanding it but Hawking radiation doesn't involve anything escaping a black hole.
>> The radiation never originates from within the event horizon. Furthermore the radiation itself does not encode any information about what fell into the black hole apart from the electric charge, angular momentum, and mass (all of which must remain conserved).
> I don't know the slightest about this but... That list looks like it is supposed to be limited but that sounds like infinitely more information than zero?
I don't know about electric charge, but can't you observe mass and angular momentum of a black hole from outside? I think the "no information" thing means the Hawking radiation won't let you tell you if the black hole was made from a dead star or just a really big pile of meat or what's going on inside of it.
IIRC, all Hawking radiation does is provide a mechanism for a black hole to eventually decay.
Hawkings radiation doesn't tell you anything about the contents of the black hole, just that it lost energy/mass. That reduces the event horizon, so there is now a (miniscule) amount of space that has become "visible". It'll be empty space, no extra mass is leaked in that way.
It's been ages since I read it and I am 99% sure I'm remember horribly wrong, but I was thinking it's something like this? Also - your "the only information" is precisely what we can measure of quantum states, so information is still preserved. That's more a limit of what we know?
I think that with Hawking radiation you have quantum entanglement of two pairs. You have a matter-antimatter pair production near the horizon. When the antimatter falls into the blackhole without being destroyed via mutual annihilation, the matter particle at the boundary now "radiates" away. HOWEVER.
The matter inside boundary which the anti-matter DOES interact with is destroyed, and the information of that interaction is is "passed" to the outside via the the anti-matter's entanglement with its co-created pair.
Something like that, isn't it? Please any physicists clarify :)
> I think that with Hawking radiation you have quantum entanglement of two pairs. You have a matter-antimatter pair production near the horizon. When the antimatter falls into the blackhole without being destroyed via mutual annihilation, the matter particle at the boundary now "radiates" away. HOWEVER.
That's not how Hawking radiation actually works. It's just a "lies-to-the-children" explanation. Antiparticles have positive mass, so the black hole would be _growing_ as a result. This mechanism also violates the equivalency principle, as you shouldn't be able to detect the event horizon with only local observations.
Reality is more interesting. In flat space, the ground state of quantum fields is actually non-zero. But black holes "bias" the fields in such a way that their ground state becomes _negative_ from the viewpoint of a remote observer.
This in turn permits it to create new particles from just nothing. This in turn adds _negative_ energy to that space, resulting in the black hole decreasing in mass.
But crucially, the event horizon itself is NOT involved. Particle creation can happen anywhere in the vicinity of the black hole, not just on the event horizon.
Please correct my understanding as I am not a scientist, but why do you assert that Hawking radiation "escapes" or "comes out of" a black hole? Nothing crosses the event horizon. Isn't it more correct to say that Hawking radiation is produced by the extreme warping of the spacetime very near the event horizon, and the black hole shrinks to conserve the energy? Black holes can also shrink as gravitational waves are produced, but we don't say that the waves "escape" the black hole.
My understanding is that Hawking radiation is where:
1. a particle/anti-particle pair is created at the event horizon;
2. the particle is on the outside edge of the event horizon, so "escapes" the black hole;
3. the anti-particle is on the inside edge of the horizon, so decreases the size of the black hole due to particle/anti-particle annihilation (with a corresponding particle on the inside of the black hole).
This is often used as an explanation in pop-sci materials, but it isn't particularly accurate, IIRC.
For example, Hawking radiation is always photons, with the wavelength corresponding to the size of the black hole. That isn't explained purely by virtual particles.
Also, for that explanation to work, it would always have to be an anti-matter particle that is selected to cross the event horizon, and I don't see how that would be the case.
Minor quibbles: Hawking radiation has a blackbody spectrum, so we get a variety of wavelengths, with a peak determined by the size of the hole. The outgoing particles should eventually include any kind of particle that can be created in the Standard Model, not just photons and gravitons.
Strangely, it is _not_ the instrinsic curvature of spacetime that produces Hawking radiation. There's a variation on Hawking radiation -- called Unruh radiation -- experienced by accelerated observers in flat spacetime. Any two observers will agree on the value of a field (e.g. the electric field) at a point, but an accelerated observer will experience empty spacetime as a _thermal bath of particles_, with a temperature proportional to the acceleration. Relatively accelerated observers don't agree on what the vacuum is.
You’re missing a big issue here… Hawking Radiation doesn’t escape from within the event horizon, and there’s no physical process preventing that. It’s radiation from the surface of the black hole, not the interior.
This reads like someone asked the LLM to write an article with "but write in first person". There are factual errors, wrong definitions, misleading intuitions. Entropy is not a "measure of how much stuff fits inside an object”, gravity does not allow you to "infer the one real arrangement of stuff inside from the warping of space-time at the surface of your box" (many different configurations will measure the same on the surface), De Sitter space do have “boundary surface” (at past/future infinity).
For a scientific article, I would expect a lot better, and you'll probably have a better learning experience talking to a frontier llm
This doesn't make sense. Which consciousness is absolute? Yours or mine? Because I can't see your consciousness; I can only infer its existence. You can't see my consciousness; you can only infer its existence.
All possible subsets of a Universal Set can be considered as Observers. So a Power Set is collection of observers. Power Set of Power Set is another such collection. So on and so forth. Powersets all the way up.
> With gravity, mass plays the role of charge. It bends space-time around it, and it is always positive. There is no negative mass, so you can always infer the one real arrangement of stuff inside from the warping of space-time at the surface of your box.
This is a simplification to the point of just being wrong. Gauss’s law works for gravity; if you put a shell around Earth you have no way of knowing whether it’s a planet or an Earth-mass black hole inside. Assuming spherical symmetry of density, anyway.
> This is a simplification to the point of just being wrong.
Is it? If you project a "3D" singularity onto a surface, it's still a point. If you project a roughly spherical object, it's roughly circular.
Gauss' law in this case would apply to the total force of gravity exerted by the mass within the shell, not its distribution across the surface of the shell.
I assumed the analogy meant that just by measuring the gravitational field outside the shell, you could figure out the mass distribution inside. And you can't, not in the general case.
I think the box explanation is misleading. There isn't literally a box whose surface you measure. The idea is that the state of a higher-dimensional gravitational system can, in some cases, be completely described by a theory in one fewer dimension.
Is the "in some cases" constraint really necessary? I thought Bousso's whole point in his talk linked elsewhere in this thread is that you can describe a 3D system in terms of 2D information.
Could you keep going, fully describing systems of higher order in less and less dimensions?
This article seems to repeatedly blur the distinction between 'having space' to encode all the states inside a volume on it's surface and an actual theory of correspondence of states.
"Having space" is just a consequence of black holes. If you have more information in a volume than can be encoded on its surface in theory, you have enough mass inside the volume to make it a black hole and the event horizon then has enough space to encode the information even if the original surface did not.
The correspondence between information, thermodynamics, and mass that causes black holes to 'make it possible' to holographically encode all the information inside is what makes this theory so tempting. What if everything is information, and black holes aren't an expression of 'too much mass', but rather just a result of 'too much information to fit'.
> That’s a violation of logic and geometry. It asks us to erase the categorical difference between square meters and cubic meters.
No, that's sheer nonsense.
> There is no negative mass, so you can always infer the one real arrangement of stuff inside from the warping of space-time at the surface of your box.
Positive mass does not make this argument work. Two bodies in GR can have different distributions of mass but identical exterior geometry. The precise counterexample is two spherically symmetric, uncharged bodies with the same total gravitational mass but different radial density profiles. By Birkhoff’s theorem, their exterior vacuum geometries are identical.
> > There is no negative mass, so you can always infer the one real arrangement of stuff inside from the warping of space-time at the surface of your box.
> Positive mass does not make this argument work. Two bodies in GR can have different distributions of mass but identical exterior geometry. A counterexample is two spherically symmetric, uncharged bodies with the same total gravitational mass but different radial density profiles. By Birkhoff’s theorem, their exterior vacuum geometries are identical.
I thought I understood the holographic theory better after this article. But now it's clear I don't.
Mathematician, not physicist, but it seems reasonable to me that you could encode a sufficiently constrained 3D space on a 2D boundary. And if you have such an encoding, it also doesn't seem insane that some things might be more easily modeled on the 2D boundary than the 3D space.
If you can convert back and forth between a 2D representation and a 3D representation, and different phenomena are more easily modeled in each, does it matter which is "real"? Unless of course you can come up with a specific prediction and experiment to test it.
The YouTube video was uploaded 18 years ago, and looks like it was filmed on a VHS camcorder. I guess it could have been 480p as the original would have been 480i, but it wouldn’t look all that much better.
I haven't watched it so far, but I'd expect some diagrams on a chalk-, or whiteboard, maybe some 'overhead' projection. These will all be almost unrecognizable at that resolution, on current screens. Would have to try to upscale with AI. Which I won't.
My favorite quote and a point where something really clicked for me was when he said "If you tried smaller you would instead be making a Planck-size black hole".
Is the physical nonlocality of the relationship between the bulk and boundary somehow related to the noncontinuity of any bijection between manifolds of different dimension?
> Mathematician, not physicist, but it seems reasonable to me that you could encode a sufficiently constrained 3D space on a 2D boundary. And if you have such an encoding, it also doesn't seem insane that some things might be more easily modeled on the 2D boundary than the 3D space.
Yes, you are missing the point entirely. Merely saying "you could encode a sufficiently constrained 3D space on a 2D boundary" as you correctly noticed, would be meaningless.
The observation is that the 3D space has properties that are weird in 3D but natural in its 2D representation.
> does it matter which is "real"?
No. Also if you have different representations of something and your job/goal is to think and gain instinct then you should keep in mind all the representations, they very likely will be useful. (An observed property of mathematics is that if a mathematician pours 40 hours per week of work in an area for years in a topic other mathematicians haven't exhausted yet, she will find something there.)
In recent years, they’ve started to get more creative. Susskind and other teams have made progress [link] on holographic de Sitter models [link] that differ radically from AdS/CFT. Instead of squashing a volume into an area, these universes seem to cram all the dimensions into a lone quantum point.
If unitarity and the no-hiding theorem are true and the Big Bag emerged from a point, doesn’t it follow that all the information about the universe was once contained in a dimensionless point?
It's a reasonable extrapolation. Big bang is extrapolation of Hubble law too. If the initial state was complex, why it would be consistent and why it would have low entropy?
> You can “compress all of the three-dimensional world into two dimensions.”
That sounds a little like the sophons in the novel Three Body Problem. IIRC, aliens took a photon, unfolded it to a flat surface to etch circuitry on, then folded it back up and fired the photon at earth where it unfolded again and did the bidding of the aliens.
> you can decipher the entire contents of the box just by repeatedly measuring points on the surface
So if the box is both inside and outside of a black hole, is that a path for information to leave a black hole?
I immediately thought of the painter analogy (from the books which are astonishingly good) of "painting" 3D objects into 2D objects from the stories, and wondered if the author was exploring the reverse of this "perfect painting" that is still "functional". I'm definitely a lay person, I know enough physics to use a lever to lift heavy things.
More like space opera is my point. Science fiction projects out into the future to extrapolate from current science, it doesn't invent a parallel reality that is contradictory with already understood science.
There's no hard scifi story that doesn't have a big (often understated) magical physics moment. The harder it gets, the more understated the miracle. I would argue it's the very existence of this crucial violation of the Standard Model (and even current day alternates) that makes any of those stories compelling. They're what drive all the other actually realistic events forward.
I'm not claiming TBP is hard scifi btw. But the reveal which OP has spoiled already makes for a sick scene and pivotal point in the book.
It just struck more as a Marvel style ending than an Arthur C Clark style ending.
Was it just one violation of the standard model? It seems like it was referencing the pre-quantum classical model of protons, before we even knew about quarks.
When all gravity runs out, and all forces fizzle into the vaccuum, entropy returns to a single maximally ordered state indistinguishable from any other. Identical conditions for a Big Bang.
Consider time itself: one beginning, and many endings. Why many endings? And who even asks the question in the first place? Many intelligent observers, with many endings, but the same beginnings. Perhaps the black holes are a hint to our own ending?
We're born and blink into existence. And then we die and fade into the void, carrying our varied stories with us.
Logically, it doesn't make sense, and we can't possibly know the answer. But what if all those ends wrapped around to the same beginning?
To me (a total physics layperson with just an interest in it) space and time HAVE to be emergent and not fundamental because of the real phenomena of spooky action at a distance and dual slit craziness. All spacetime surely has to be connected is what it’s telling us.
Or hear me out here… we as a species have developed measuring methodology that is precise enough at human scale but not actually correct and breaks down at larger scales.
As far as I understand it,the relative time as we know it, is just something that emerges from the fact that all particle interactions travel with constant light speed.
So if anything moves, the interactions don't change their speed, they stay constant, but the delta to the movement changes, and thus time dilates.
Would be interesting to know if there is some absolute/fundamental global time that has nothing to do with the time we perceive.
233 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 47.8 ms ] threadThere are other dimensionality!
The dimensions are like origami, not parallel universes, however the relationships are as though such (all origami pieces then hyperdimensionality relate.)
If we call the underlying “universal potential” and whatever we think our universe as, is a plane for hyperdimensional coordinates, much of this will begin to make sense.
Gravity (and space time) is a “universal field” that “falls” Around the distributed mass (vector torsions of mass particles) and mass particles are universal potential (same stuff as measured energy in a photon) is half spin vector locked discrete amounts.
Sub-atomic particles may then be discrete spin lock configurations and not distinct in any other way.
This would make the Higgs particle a lie, and the Higgs field this deformation of gravitational surface area.
Just what I’ve come up with. Existential reality (universal potential distributing) is holographic and gravity is half spin vector torsion on a plane of universal existence.
Get to the bottom of who is running it all yet?
A torsion to the right, a torsion to the left mate in circular momentum.
Sounds like complementary spins.
If anit-matter had shown anti-gravity effects then gravity may have been just some imbalance of forces in the universe, but it doesn't appear to be that way.
Using a spin lock is wasteful and not the best move in times of rising energy prices. Use a mutex to put the waiting thread to sleep.
There's not necessarily any breakthrough right around the corner and we shouldn't rush to coronation preemptively, but there's a lot of physics "voting with their feet" for holography as the article says, and I think it's officially time to start getting hyped. It could have sanity-restoring answers to questions of quantum weirdness, albeit at the rather expensive cost of giving up even more on our day to day intuitions about space and time in favor of an apparently informational substrate.
String theory had a generation of great science communicators writing its books and singing its praises, but holography doesn't yet have equivalent public champions, and I hope that's something that changes sooner than later.
string theory, 11 dimensions, is bonkers though, it's what happens when people are too smart for their own good imho lol
Holographic gravity is no less fanciful if there’s no practical experiment to prove it.
There’s holography in string theory: AdS/CFT but this rather maps 4d super Yang mills (on the boundary of AdS5) in an AdS5xS5 background: which is one holography correspondence we know works.
Holography is much more common, but we only really understand it on hyperbolic spaces.
Also since it has a theory at strong coupling on one side we cannot really do calculation on that side and verify it.
You can use it tho to make calculations.
It's more a difference of emphasis (holography in particular) than something that's outside the scope of string theory.
I would argue that has done more harm than good. Strong media personalities shouting "the next big breakthrough is here!" followed by 25 years of zero practical results have not done good things for public perception of field of physics. A layperson could be mistaken for assuming the field is literally regressing.
Could be forgiven?
Damnit, I rewrote that sentence twice and still got it wrong.
Gah I am not a fan of pop-sci simplifications like this for the sake of a soundbite. The author goes onto explain how no, a picture is not enough, you need to actually measure the distortion of spacetime at the surface.
Because if we litigate the imperfections of analogies all day long, then you're going to react to videos titled "black holes described at five levels of difficulty" by saying the first four levels were all wrong, which may in a sense be technically true but not in the spirit of the exercise.
> Consider a video game sun passing behind a video game tree. The sun pixels touch the tree pixels directly, yet the tree does not burst into flames. This is because the sun pixels are independent of the tree pixels.
With apologies to Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such an explanation.
Just as acceleration through space causes [the same effect as] gravity, could regular gravity be the movement through TIME?
Could gravity be a facet of time as electricity is to magnetism and vice versa? and the reason we cannot "isolate" gravity is because it's interwoven with time?
But then it would be weird that photos who don't experience time are affected by gravity..
Or maybe space, time and gravity are a trinity?
(no I'm not high, but maybe I should be)
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoCYY9sa2kU
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klpDHn8viX8
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYSKEbd956M
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNEBhwimJWs
But then Hawking argued back the opposite case, which in simple terms means that some things can, indeed, escape an event horizon. In fact, name dropping Hawking just to mention his views as they stood before his 1973 work, and his 1974 model of Hawking radiation seems dangerously incomplete journalistic reporting.
In 1974 Hawking formulated what we now know as Hawking Radiation, which is the *exact opposite* of what was previously believed about the impossibility of anything coming back from a black hole. Whilst still not conclusively proven as a physical fact, this did win him the Special Fundamental Physics Prize in 2013. specifically for his discovery of Hawking radiation from black holes and his deep contributions to quantum gravity and quantum aspects of the early universe.
Hawking found that energy/mass can escape but the information remains destroyed. You can't run a black hole backwards in time and reconstruct the matter that created it and hawking radiation bears no resemblance to anything that was ever beyond the horizon.
The radiation never originates from within the event horizon. Furthermore the radiation itself does not encode any information about what fell into the black hole apart from the electric charge, angular momentum, and mass (all of which must remain conserved).
>> The radiation never originates from within the event horizon. Furthermore the radiation itself does not encode any information about what fell into the black hole apart from the electric charge, angular momentum, and mass (all of which must remain conserved).
> I don't know the slightest about this but... That list looks like it is supposed to be limited but that sounds like infinitely more information than zero?
I don't know about electric charge, but can't you observe mass and angular momentum of a black hole from outside? I think the "no information" thing means the Hawking radiation won't let you tell you if the black hole was made from a dead star or just a really big pile of meat or what's going on inside of it.
IIRC, all Hawking radiation does is provide a mechanism for a black hole to eventually decay.
I think that with Hawking radiation you have quantum entanglement of two pairs. You have a matter-antimatter pair production near the horizon. When the antimatter falls into the blackhole without being destroyed via mutual annihilation, the matter particle at the boundary now "radiates" away. HOWEVER.
The matter inside boundary which the anti-matter DOES interact with is destroyed, and the information of that interaction is is "passed" to the outside via the the anti-matter's entanglement with its co-created pair.
Something like that, isn't it? Please any physicists clarify :)
That's not how Hawking radiation actually works. It's just a "lies-to-the-children" explanation. Antiparticles have positive mass, so the black hole would be _growing_ as a result. This mechanism also violates the equivalency principle, as you shouldn't be able to detect the event horizon with only local observations.
Reality is more interesting. In flat space, the ground state of quantum fields is actually non-zero. But black holes "bias" the fields in such a way that their ground state becomes _negative_ from the viewpoint of a remote observer.
This in turn permits it to create new particles from just nothing. This in turn adds _negative_ energy to that space, resulting in the black hole decreasing in mass.
But crucially, the event horizon itself is NOT involved. Particle creation can happen anywhere in the vicinity of the black hole, not just on the event horizon.
1. a particle/anti-particle pair is created at the event horizon;
2. the particle is on the outside edge of the event horizon, so "escapes" the black hole;
3. the anti-particle is on the inside edge of the horizon, so decreases the size of the black hole due to particle/anti-particle annihilation (with a corresponding particle on the inside of the black hole).
For example, Hawking radiation is always photons, with the wavelength corresponding to the size of the black hole. That isn't explained purely by virtual particles.
Also, for that explanation to work, it would always have to be an anti-matter particle that is selected to cross the event horizon, and I don't see how that would be the case.
For a scientific article, I would expect a lot better, and you'll probably have a better learning experience talking to a frontier llm
Would this imply that time is the third dimension?
space is an illusion...The only thing that is absolute is consciousness, on top of which all illusions stand.
Ours. Or every ones..We can easily accept that we inhabit the same spacetime. Why is it hard to imagine the same for consciousness?
Tell me again how Consciousness is an illusion..
This is a simplification to the point of just being wrong. Gauss’s law works for gravity; if you put a shell around Earth you have no way of knowing whether it’s a planet or an Earth-mass black hole inside. Assuming spherical symmetry of density, anyway.
Is it? If you project a "3D" singularity onto a surface, it's still a point. If you project a roughly spherical object, it's roughly circular.
Gauss' law in this case would apply to the total force of gravity exerted by the mass within the shell, not its distribution across the surface of the shell.
Could you keep going, fully describing systems of higher order in less and less dimensions?
"Having space" is just a consequence of black holes. If you have more information in a volume than can be encoded on its surface in theory, you have enough mass inside the volume to make it a black hole and the event horizon then has enough space to encode the information even if the original surface did not.
The correspondence between information, thermodynamics, and mass that causes black holes to 'make it possible' to holographically encode all the information inside is what makes this theory so tempting. What if everything is information, and black holes aren't an expression of 'too much mass', but rather just a result of 'too much information to fit'.
> That’s a violation of logic and geometry. It asks us to erase the categorical difference between square meters and cubic meters.
No, that's sheer nonsense.
> There is no negative mass, so you can always infer the one real arrangement of stuff inside from the warping of space-time at the surface of your box.
Positive mass does not make this argument work. Two bodies in GR can have different distributions of mass but identical exterior geometry. The precise counterexample is two spherically symmetric, uncharged bodies with the same total gravitational mass but different radial density profiles. By Birkhoff’s theorem, their exterior vacuum geometries are identical.
> Positive mass does not make this argument work. Two bodies in GR can have different distributions of mass but identical exterior geometry. A counterexample is two spherically symmetric, uncharged bodies with the same total gravitational mass but different radial density profiles. By Birkhoff’s theorem, their exterior vacuum geometries are identical.
I thought I understood the holographic theory better after this article. But now it's clear I don't.
If you can convert back and forth between a 2D representation and a 3D representation, and different phenomena are more easily modeled in each, does it matter which is "real"? Unless of course you can come up with a specific prediction and experiment to test it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHgi6E1ECgo
HIGHLY recommend it for lay folks interested in this stuff. Which reminds me, I should yt-dl this so it's not lost, and I have a copy...
My favorite quote and a point where something really clicked for me was when he said "If you tried smaller you would instead be making a Planck-size black hole".
Yes, you are missing the point entirely. Merely saying "you could encode a sufficiently constrained 3D space on a 2D boundary" as you correctly noticed, would be meaningless.
The observation is that the 3D space has properties that are weird in 3D but natural in its 2D representation.
> does it matter which is "real"?
No. Also if you have different representations of something and your job/goal is to think and gain instinct then you should keep in mind all the representations, they very likely will be useful. (An observed property of mathematics is that if a mathematician pours 40 hours per week of work in an area for years in a topic other mathematicians haven't exhausted yet, she will find something there.)
In recent years, they’ve started to get more creative. Susskind and other teams have made progress [link] on holographic de Sitter models [link] that differ radically from AdS/CFT. Instead of squashing a volume into an area, these universes seem to cram all the dimensions into a lone quantum point.
But I had the same question few months back. Asking Claude is fruitful in this case.
That sounds a little like the sophons in the novel Three Body Problem. IIRC, aliens took a photon, unfolded it to a flat surface to etch circuitry on, then folded it back up and fired the photon at earth where it unfolded again and did the bidding of the aliens.
> you can decipher the entire contents of the box just by repeatedly measuring points on the surface
So if the box is both inside and outside of a black hole, is that a path for information to leave a black hole?
I'm not claiming TBP is hard scifi btw. But the reveal which OP has spoiled already makes for a sick scene and pivotal point in the book.
Was it just one violation of the standard model? It seems like it was referencing the pre-quantum classical model of protons, before we even knew about quarks.
Maybe fifth time's the charm. ;-)
Consider time itself: one beginning, and many endings. Why many endings? And who even asks the question in the first place? Many intelligent observers, with many endings, but the same beginnings. Perhaps the black holes are a hint to our own ending?
We're born and blink into existence. And then we die and fade into the void, carrying our varied stories with us.
Logically, it doesn't make sense, and we can't possibly know the answer. But what if all those ends wrapped around to the same beginning?
Would you look at the world differently?
what does this mean?
So if anything moves, the interactions don't change their speed, they stay constant, but the delta to the movement changes, and thus time dilates.
Would be interesting to know if there is some absolute/fundamental global time that has nothing to do with the time we perceive.