HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

>"In physics, a plasmon is a quantum of plasma oscillation.

Just as light (an optical oscillation) consists of photons, the plasma oscillation consists of plasmons."

PDS: Which means that an electron -- is a quantum of electron oscillation...

Which means that "oscillations" -- are the common denominator between electrons, photons, and plasmons (and probably any other thing in Physics with a "mon" -- after its name! <g>)

Well, that, and they're "quantum"...

Now, interestingly enough, when looking for the definition of "quantum", the first definition Google offers me is:

Quantum: "a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents." (Google Search, 7/9/2021)

Now, frequency is itself a proportion, a ratio, relative to TIME.

Also, both "oscillations" and "frequency" are general terms for vibrations, although the definition of "frequency" is something like "vibrations per unit time", so it includes unit time -- whereas "oscillation" generally speaking, does not...

Well, if all of these things mean the same thing in essence, then why can't we just "solve for X"?

In other words, what's the common denominator -- between all of these apparently different things?

Well, they're all just vibrations, at different rates of time, aren't they?

Maybe a future physics -- will see all particles, waves, and fields -- as just vibrations...

Vibrations inside of vibrations...

Vibrations inside of other vibrations inside of still other -- vibrations...

Slower vibrations (particles, when "looked at", when a measurement is taken in an instant of TIME) inside of faster vibrations, inside of still faster vibrations...

Fractal vibrations!

Perhaps the math of a future physics -- is fractal in nature...

Also, here's an interesting question...

If vibrations (in any system, at any scale) are related to the conservation of angular momentum -- then how would you conserve the energy of the entire universe -- if it contained infinite energy, infinite spin?

?

And a related question: How was the first spin in the Universe created -- if the Universe initially consisted of nothing? (Related question: Can spin ever be created/destroyed at the Plank scale or smaller? Why or why not?)

Also...

I'll bet that a future scientist will prove -- that conservation of angular momentum -- and the conservation of information (necessary to resolve "The Black Hole Information Paradox") -- are really in fact, the same thing!

For some background pages/videos on "The Black Hole Information Paradox":

Fabio Pacucci: "Hawking's Black Hole Paradox Explained"

https://www.ted.com/talks/fabio_pacucci_hawking_s_black_hole...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram (Great video, IMHO, worth re-watching many times over!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

⬐ gus_massa

> PDS: Which means that an electron -- is a quantum of electron oscillation...

Somewhat. If you want to do down that rabbit hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory Warning: It's a very deep hole in the bottom of a very deep cavern. Don't forget to enter with a lamp and enough book of Math to make a Math student cry. (And some technical details are still not clear, so you actually need more books than what are currently available. But you can use the Physicist approach an explore and hope the technical details will be fixed later.)

> Well, they're all just vibrations, at different rates of time, aren't they?

It's more complicated, they are like vibrations of different fields.

There is a somewhat recent theory that supports this idea. It is unclear whether or not things actually fall-in, but the idea is that the entire surface is a hologram, and the surface alone is sufficient to describe the entire contents. (Thus preventing any information loss).

Much better described here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

⬐ maffydub

Good video - thanks!

I didn't quite follow how information came back out of the black hole as it shrank - is it "encoded" on the Hawking radiation?

⬐ aeternum

I believe Hawking thought so, but that's just one possible explanation. Others think it all escapes at the very end.

Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind gave a great talk on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

I think they may have accidentally removed a character from the URL.

The posted URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9t

The actual URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

Suskind actually has a whole lecture on Youtube devoted to addressing the paradox of falling into a black hole from the perspective of the person falling in versus an outside observer. The outside observer sees the falling observer catastrophically turned into high-entropy soup smeared across the horizon, while the one falling feels nothing particularly special as they cross the event horizon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

⬐ Pharmakon

Just a note, that’s the case for a very high mass black hole. A “smaller” black hole would shred the astronaut before they even reached the event horizon.

This one works for me (UK):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

(Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram)

Perhaps this lecture by Leonard Susskind can help you with the hologram universe concept:

https://youtu.be/2DIl3Hfh9tY

Not sure if it's related but this lecture gave me some basic grasp on the notion of holographic representations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

Since you asked for more depth, I'll focus on the (comparatively easier) task of giving some links to technical literature. First of all, if you already have a traditional QFT background, there's the two extremes of either just taking a simple toy example to play with [1] or a fairly rigorous well written lecture course [2]. For a more general physics/math background I'd recommend a slightly more pedagogical treatment [3], but it's still accurate to the subject matter and therefore contains graduate level mathematics. There's a lot more out there, but these are just some of the descriptions I've personally skimmed and found them to be well written and useful.

On the other end of the scale, there's a huge amount of popular documentaries out there that purport to say something about AdS/CFT. Most of them either contain nonsense or don't say very much at all. I don't really know how useful the popular analogies really are, but in the spirit of making at least one recommendation that doesn't contain any math, Susskind's public lectures are easy to watch (here's one [4]), and Susskind is careful not to talk nonsense.

There isn't really much on AdS/CFT that's in between graduate level mathematics and math-less popular stuff. The reason is that it's a fairly irreducible concept in the sense that you really need to understand what an anti-de Sitter space is and how conformal field theories work to see why there's a mathematical correspondence between them, and this isn't truly analogous to anything simpler. That's why it's very hard to explain beyond the level of vague metaphors without being rigorous about it.

[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0403110.pdf

[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0201253.pdf

[3] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.4319.pdf

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

⬐ QAPereo

This is precisely what I was hoping for, and I just cannot thank you enough for taking the time to do this. I really appreciate you giving me a full range of resources too.

⬐ keldaris

Glad I could help! AdS/CFT is a very elegant idea in modern physics, I hope you enjoy studying it.

Black hole Firewalls with Sean Carroll and Jennifer Ouellette (45m+50s quick summary of the holographic principle) https://youtu.be/_8bhtEgB8Mo?t=45m50s

Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram (more dense/verbose)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

Thanks a lot. I've just watched susskind talk on the universe as a hologram ( https://youtu.be/2DIl3Hfh9tY ), and it didn't occured to me until i read what you just said simply that the holographic principle meant you could actually push less stuff / bits in a black hole by growing it, than you first thought if you compared it to a volume growing. So that meant information was stored on its surface (r^2), and not inside it (r^3).

Am i correct ?

⬐ marcosdumay

Keep in mind that IANAP.

The information stored is proportional to the surface, not volume.

But also, the holographic principle applies to more than black holes. At any volume, the maximum information you can put there is proportional to r^2. That applies to all the volumes inside the volume you just measured... what means that a volume can not be completely full (a weird case of apparent non-locality).

An hologram is a better analogue to it than information being stored on the surface because, outside of black holes it apparently isn't all on the surface. (I guess for the black hole information loss problem, information being in the surface or in a hologram don't make much difference.)

here is a related lecture: "Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

⬐ 3rd3

Great lecture. When information moves outside of the shell of our observable universe due to expansion, shouldn't we be able to receive Hawking radiation from this process?

To be completely honest - There is no straight answer. One modern answer was that particles falling into a black hole would appear to be destroyed for outside observer (in a vortex of fire) while the observer would be scrambled into a holographic representation (keep in mind ashes would be a highly energetic representation of same observer).

See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_%28physics%29

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

Others can hopefully chime in with more, but when I first was learning about it, my reaction to the word "hologram" was the same as your (1). My understanding is that when they say "hologram", they're simply meaning an n dimensional object that's encoded in n-1 dimensional space.

If you're not familiar with the basics of the Holographic Principle, start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

It's been a while since I've watched these, but IIRC these are very good videos to start with:

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHgi6E1ECgo

EDIT:

Key clippings from the wikipedia article-

"But Jacob Bekenstein noted that this leads to a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. If one throws a hot gas with entropy into a black hole, once it crosses the event horizon, the entropy would disappear. The random properties of the gas would no longer be seen once the black hole had absorbed the gas and settled down. The second law can only be salvaged if black holes are in fact random objects, with an enormous entropy whose increase is greater than the entropy carried by the gas.

Bekenstein argued that black holes are maximum entropy objects—that they have more entropy than anything else in the same volume. In a sphere of radius R, the entropy in a relativistic gas increases as the energy increases. The only limit is gravitational; when there is too much energy the gas collapses into a black hole. Bekenstein used this to put an upper bound on the entropy in a region of space, and the bound was proportional to the area of the region. He concluded that the black hole entropy is directly proportional to the __area__ of the event horizon."

(__'s mine)

⬐ rthomas6

>Bekenstein argued that black holes are maximum entropy objects

So would it follow that the equilibrium state of the universe is one gigantic black hole?

⬐ Ygg2

We are essentially sitting inside a giant black hole.

As our cosmos expands faster than speed of light, we can't ever escape this cosmos. Our light cone is similar to one that sits in a giant black hole.

⬐ 001sky

Is there any issue here about fundamental stability? I'm struggling with how the universe can be at once expanding and some form of dimensionalized representation. Unless the other half of the relation is also in some sort of dynamic transition. Which might be true but suggest (perhaps as you do) there are things outside our perception that we can never perceive, not to mention measure or experience (ie travel too) because they are outside the space of our cognitive faculties. Or like you say, we are in a black hole and can't see out.

⬐ mmastrac

> we can't ever escape this cosmos

Unless we figure out how to emit ourselves as Hawking Radiation in the outer universe?

⬐ X4

wow, this thread gets more and more interesting. I think the discovery of the holographic universe just broke all norms and worldviews of physics for the most of us.

⬐ Ygg2

Unless we figure how to tunnel to the other side of the universe. Because quantum tunneling would allow us to move faster than light which is necessary to escape.

⬐ 10098

So the key takeaway from that, for me, is that this research does NOT prove that we live in a "simulation".

⬐ None

None

⬐ andrewflnr

It's impossible in principle to prove that we are or are not living in a simulation.

⬐ ericbb

The simulation is always buggy. Don't you watch movies? ;)

⬐ kamaal

>>My understanding is that when they say "hologram", they're simply meaning an n dimensional object that's encoded in n-1 dimensional space.

If you apply that definition recursively. i.e, n in n - 1 , n - 1 in n - 2 and so on. You can ideally represent every thing in the very first dimension itself.

⬐ dTal

Ah, but you already knew that - anything computable can be represented on a Turing machine's 1-dimensional tape.

Makes me wonder what it actually means to say a system is n-dimensional, if you can equally well "implement" it for any n.

I have found this Leonard Susskind lecture to come closest to answering the question of "why would anyone even suggest such a thing?" about this subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DIl3Hfh9tY

⬐ Kronopath

That's an excellent lecture, and explains a lot of these things in understandable terms. Thanks.