Holographic Principle (split from Why light speed?)

[Conjurer]

4 hours ago, Janus said:

So according to you, the Earth should collapse into a black hole just because some distant object is traveling at a high fraction of c relative to us.   Again, relative motion will not produce a singularity in any frame.   If you think it will, you are seriously misunderstanding something.

The holographic principal says that all of the information of the universe can be stored on the surface of a black hole.  That doesn't mean that the entire universe is literally on the surface of a black hole.  It would just appear as though the Earth did collapse inside of a black hole.  The information of what is going on with the planet would be censored.  Then people would see them convert into a black hole, so the information on the ship would be censored from them.  Then in the holographic universe they are able to calculate what happens everywhere in the universe by looking at what it would look like on the surface of a black hole. 

It would be unavoidable for the math to say that it would not produce a singularity in that type of situation.  If you knew how to calculate for that without it producing a singularity, I would love to hear about it.  

The entire universe could be considered a black hole.  Information from outside of the visible universe is censored from us, and nothing can be seen to surpass the speed of light in order to escape it.

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The holographic principal says that all of the information of the universe can be stored on the surface of a black hole. 

Nooooo.....

It says that the entropy in a spherical volume of space is proportional to the surface area of that volume. It originally came from black hole thermodynamics.

10 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The entire universe could be considered a black hole. 

The observable universe may have a horizon but it is nothing like a black hole. 

Apart from anything else, the singularity in the Big Bang model is in the past, while a singularity in a black hole is in the future.

 

[Conjurer]

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nooooo.....

It says that the entropy in a spherical volume of space is proportional to the surface area of that volume. It originally came from black hole thermodynamics.

I heard it straight from the horses mouth...  

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I heard it straight from the horses mouth...  

Perhaps you could provide a reference, then.

[Conjurer]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Perhaps you could provide a reference, then.

You can just google Leonard Susskind on YouTube to see it.  That was the developer of the theory.  It can be hard to find, since that is also a popular term for non-physics theories.  

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

You can just google Leonard Susskind on YouTube to see it. 

No. It is your claim; it is up to you to support it. Without that, I will just assume you are mistaken (or made it up).

[Conjurer]

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. It is your claim; it is up to you to support it. Without that, I will just assume you are mistaken (or made it up).

Okay, this is it from another horses mouth...

 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Conjurer said:

Okay, this is it from another horses mouth...

What is it about you people and videos? Can't you get your information from proper sources!?

OK. That does not say what you said. They said the information in a black hole is (may be) encoded on the surface. The information in the universe may be encoded on a 2D surface (not a black hole).

 

[Conjurer]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is it about you people and videos? Can't you get your information from proper sources!?

 

I would say that the advice of a professional in the field that is actually able to be working on the theory is a proper source.  It seems appropriate for me, considering this is a discussion forum, and this isn't actually a tool real scientist use to collaborate to work on a project to make actual discoveries.

 

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. That does not say what you said. They said the information in a black hole is (may be) encoded on the surface. The information in the universe may be encoded on a 2D surface (not a black hole).

It actually says both in the video.  The entire basis of theory is that an object would become time dilated so much at the surface of a black hole, that it would end up losing its forward momentum, because it would no longer experience time to continue moving forward.  Then it considers the frame of reference of the observer falling in, and that makes it look like everything is on the surface of the black hole because it observes everything else to be contracted in the same way.  Then the entire universe is seen as being on the surface of the black hole from the frame of reference of the person falling into it. 

Edited November 4, 2018 by Conjurer

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It actually says both in the video. 

Both what?

It certainly doesn't say that "all of the information of the universe can be stored on the surface of a black hole" as you claimed. (And this is why videos are such a terrible source. I can't quote from it - and neither can you - to demonstrate what it says.)

Quote

 The entire basis of theory is that an object would become time dilated so much at the surface of a black hole, that it would end up losing its forward momentum, because it would no longer experience time to continue moving forward.  Then it considers the frame of reference of the observer falling in, and that makes it look like everything is on the surface of the black hole because it observes everything else to be contracted in the same way.  Then the entire universe is seen as being on the surface of the black hole from the frame of reference of the person falling into it. 

This is just nonsense. Someone falling into a black hole would be in the same Rame of reference as the other stuff falling in and so would not see it time dilated. In fact, someone falling through the even horizon would not notice anything at all.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/01/19/what-would-you-see-as-you-fell-into-a-black-hole/#16a293ce8583

[Conjurer]

53 minutes ago, Strange said:

Both what?

It certainly doesn't say that "all of the information of the universe can be stored on the surface of a black hole" as you claimed. (And this is why videos are such a terrible source. I can't quote from it - and neither can you - to demonstrate what it says.)

In the Holographic Universe, the rest of the universe can be seen as a projection from the surface of a black hole.  It looks at the universe from a frame of reference that is completely dilated, so everything else in the universe is seen as more like a projection from that surface.  That is why they say that everything is an illusion in the theory.  From that frame of reference, everything would have to be some sort of illusion, because we do not actually perceive ourselves as living on the surface of a black hole or anywhere close to it.  It takes making a project from that surface to be able to discern anything that is happening from that frame of reference. 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

This is just nonsense. Someone falling into a black hole would be in the same Rame of reference as the other stuff falling in and so would not see it time dilated. In fact, someone falling through the even horizon would not notice anything at all.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/01/19/what-would-you-see-as-you-fell-into-a-black-hole/#16a293ce8583

Then you just don't accept the science behind the Holographic Principal.  He discovered this by eliminating the other variables involved, and he only used the time variable in order to see what was happening as something fell into a black hole.  This was a completely different approach to what people have tried doing in order to determine this before.  That, in itself, is a new claim that Leonard Susskind is making to be a discovery.  It is part of more recent work done in black hole physics which also considers thermal temperatures of particles falling into them using quantum physics. 

Then your reasoning seems to be out of date.  It is like the same method I was trying to use to show the speed of light barrier.  It would be a lot like the barrier created on the surface of a black hole in the Holographic Principal, because it uses the same basic idea of only considering time dilation when the event happens. 

[Strange]

39 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

In the Holographic Universe, the rest of the universe can be seen as a projection from the surface of a black hole. 

That isn't what your video says. As I can't quite from your video, here is a proper (i.e. written) source:

"The holographic principle is a principle of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region"

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

39 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It looks at the universe from a frame of reference that is completely dilated, so everything else in the universe is seen as more like a projection from that surface. 

The holographic principle has nothing to do with time dilation; it is a consequence of time dilation.

39 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Then you just don't accept the science behind the Holographic Principal.

No me. You are contradicting what astrophysicists say.

39 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

He discovered this by eliminating the other variables involved, and he only used the time variable in order to see what was happening as something fell into a black hole. 

No. It is based on thermodynamics.

"The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which conjectures that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected."

(same source)

Note the complete absence of any mention of time dilation on that page.

I think that is enough of your guesswork.

[Conjurer]

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

That isn't what your video says. As I can't quite from your video, here is a proper (i.e. written) source:

"The holographic principle is a principle of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region"

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

The lowest and simplest mode of a string in string theory is a photon.  Essentially, a string in string theory is a photon.

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

The lowest and simplest mode of a string in string theory is a photon. 

1. How is this relevant?

2. Please provide a reference for this claim (preferably not a video)

[Conjurer]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

1. How is this relevant?

In string theory, a photon isn't a particle; it is a string.  It takes into account the world-line of photons.  Then it is considering things in a different reference frame.  Then theoretical physicist are able to look at the universe as a whole and describe it as being on a membrane in a greater multiverse.  Then it isn't surprising at all that it went to string theory to describe a frame of reference that describes a projection of the entire universe.  It may just be more easily applied to mathematics that way, because string theory already does that.  I don't find it contradictory to what I was saying at all, and I am not surprised by it saying that.

 

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

2. Please provide a reference for this claim (preferably not a video)

I heard someone say it on television once.  You or I could probably search the darkest depths of string theory and never find an answer to that.  It took me years from reading about it, just to find out that much about it.  That is why I thought it is a fun fact that people should know.  I don't think it should be forgotten, but I don't think I would be able to provide a reference for that. 

Most of the stuff we are talking about deals with theoretical physics that is beyond the available information on the internet.  I don't think I need to start plagiarizing books, just so I can have a conversation.  That basically sounds like what this is coming down to.  

[zapatos]

31 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I heard someone say it on television once. 

It would help neophytes like me if you would be a little more careful when making statements that sound like accepted theory. There are more people involved in these threads than just those conversing. Thanks.

[Conjurer]

51 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It would help neophytes like me if you would be a little more careful when making statements that sound like accepted theory. There are more people involved in these threads than just those conversing. Thanks.

That someone was Dr. Michio Kaku, one of the founders of string theory.  If it is of any consolation, he never ended up publishing it in any of his books.  Often times, he just went on and on about how no one knows what exactly it is in his own writings.  Then I don't have a reference for it.

[swansont]

14 hours ago, Conjurer said:

You can just google Leonard Susskind on YouTube to see it.  That was the developer of the theory.  It can be hard to find, since that is also a popular term for non-physics theories.  

!

Moderator Note

No, that's not the right answer. You made the claim. You need to back it up. 

And such a foundational thought should not be hard to find in a publication or summary (not YouTube)