Holographic principle

I'm not even gonna bother arguing cos you clearly know more about this stuff than me. Cheers for taking the time for your reply anyway.

I'll try not to be "that freshman" but I can't make any promises lol.

- D

One final thought -

(this could piss some people off)

I've more or less given up on my crackpot ideas, but If we could somehow collect data regarding the size of black holes during the moments after their inception and compare that data to the size of observable universe over time, could we not verify whether or not the universe or perhaps, more accurately; multiverse is fractal in nature.

The size of black holes during the moments after their inceptions aren't actually that big of a mystery. They grow with whatever you feed them. When a star collapses, they have whatever mass of the star has fallen in so far, and that rate would depend on the star itself. Black holes in different situations grow at wildly different rates from zero to x-ray binaries to active quasars. Considering you're comparing the size of the universe, one data point, to an incomprehensibly large and enormously varying data set of all black holes, no results would have any meaning.

>I've never in my life met a physicist who believed this
Pretty sure Leonard Susskind is a big proponent for this from watching some of his lectures. I'm not a huge fan of his theory's though.
I don't know a lot about holographic principle, but does in not deal more with entanglement of space than there being an actual projection?
Its a solution to the information paradox, but it extends to our horizon of the observable universe too.

As I understand it, it goes something like:
>All of space is entangled.
>If you define a sphere around a region of space; the surface of that sphere can hold all information of whatever is inside it.
>And because all of space is entangled, the sphere will hold this information.

I don't know a lot about it.

Don't give up so easily, if you can't argue about bullshit science here, then there is no good place.
I find I always learn more about the subject by doing so, especially if I'm arguing something am obviously wrong about.

Just don't argue fallaciously, that is basically just shitposting.

Leonard Susskind and there are other prominent physicists. I read a book about all of this but it took much more of a metaphysical approach towards the theory and did not explain any of the math behind it. The largest problem with these new theories are that they are practically impossible to test.

One thing that bothers me about the holographic principle, is that it seems kinda natural for me that the surface of a sphere could hold all info on everything it contains.

If we think of it like a series of layers going in(think onion), when ever you add a new layer, that layer should be able to hold all possible arrangements of the layers below, just not all at once. It will be a factorial rise in the information each layer can hold, but with each new layer of space you add, it will only be one of all those possible layers that the top layers have to contain.
Its probably really confusing the way I explain it, Ill try to clarify if its needed.

I wouldn't mind clarification if you don't mind.
Does this imply that at some point, the inner most "layer" of the onion would not have room for another layer?

Ill try to, but keep in mind I'm not good enough at math to show that its true or false, and I'm just going by whatever intuition I have.

First off, at the center it will stop sometime, and I'm not sure how those innermost layers would be arranged. But it basically goes down to plank length since that is the limit for storing information in the way they use it in holo-principle as I understand it.

Now, my problem with it isn't really a problem with the theory itself, but with how big of a revelation the principle is. I always hear it being said that its not normally how information works: That its a very strange thing that our space has this property of information storage.

But as I see it, there couldn't be any other way.
Because as you grow a sphere, the information on all the layers inside it put together, will grow slower than a factorial(you only add the layers together), but the possible ways to arrange a layer will grow as a factorial(I'm not sure this is true), so it is totally natural space has this property of the holo-principle.
I'm also not sure if the number of possible arrangements equals a larger information storage capacity.

not sure if i understand you. do you mean we are like ants on some table and black holes are, well, holes in this table so when we fall in them we start falling(and moving in 3D "real" space)?

>Using this logic, the unexplained acceleration of the expansion in our universe could be as a result of our black hole absorbing stellar material in an outer universe.

You want to talk logic? Lets think for a moment, going back to how a black hole is formed (or at least our current understanding of it). This is a theory, but so are the other. There is really no proof or explanation that is accepted as of yet, only what we've observed to be true.
A really massive sun burns all its energy and all that is left is the iron core (which we know that suns of that caliber have). This iron core is spinning at the rate the sun was spinning and is so dense that it's magnetic field ceases to exist (there is no space to propagate a magnetic field). The suns spin and the fact that there is "no gravity" in the center of a mass makes it a perfect environment for the iron to become absolutely perfectly aligned in structure and this coupled with the fact that it's so compressed that it becomes a massive sinkhole searching for magnetic material (matter). Light, being on the EM spectrum will warp around this mass and become "trapped" only in this case it's just being stored as potential energy waiting to be released in the form of a new sun. This new sun will be formed once enough mass and energy have been absorbed and the process starts again.
QM will have you believe that a ton a mass just disappears into nowhere makes a "hole in space" that everything sinks into which is absurd because something just doesn't turn into nothing. The mass never goes anywhere, it can' be read by our instruments because it is not a mass we can see with out magnetic based technology, it has no magnetic field it may even have the inverse of a magnetic field.

You *are* completely fucking retarded. Nothing you're saying makes the least bit of sense and just reveals that you know _nothing_ of what you're talking about. God everytime some "physics undergrad" comes talking pseudo-scientific "i fucking love science"-tier shit without knowing AT ALL the actual science... Kys.

If this is possible, I think the more interesting question is how much energy is inside vs. Outside. So that nested black holes have more , less or the same stability as ours.

If gravity leaks between nested holes, then I'd expect a temporal relationship. If that's the case, we can use data from evaporating holes in our universe to infer the age /size of the universe our hole is in.

bump

i'ts this kind of bullshit that makes me cry for not believing in god

Not OP but also am an undergrad and have a physics question.

When we look at a cylinder form the side it looks like a rectangle. And from the top you see a circle. Similarly, is there some 4-D or 5-D analog that could help explain the wave particle duality?

bump

Unlikely, as the wave function lies in configuration space, and the configuration of the system (ie where the particles are and more) is a single point in the configuration space. But if you don't like the wave-particle duality try checking out Bohmian mechanics. In Bohmian mechanics, the particle(s) and the wavefunction are considered seperate entities, and the particle(s) is/are guided by the wavefunction.

You want to read Landau (yes, all volumes) and string theory textbook (obviously you first need to know the math) if you want to think about this at any level beyond "i have no fucking idea what i'm talking about"
>I've never in my life met a physicist who believed this
You didn't meet any hep-theorist then, especially a string theorist.
>It is essentialy a what-if thought experiment
It is mathematical result in models of certain theory (string theory).
>meaningless
For brainlets only interested in knowledge that can be used to make muh bread cheaper. Even then, the fact that we don't know any such application doesn't mean there is none.
It is in your best interest that you avoid any physics book with philosophic approach (all popsci). Theoretical physics is not something one can begin to understand, appreciate or participate in without mathematical maturity. Holographic principle comes entirely from the math of string theory, not some metaphysical pondering about it.
The testability is not really that much of an issue as long as there is some new data coming, which there is, and as long as the theory keeps getting more rigorous, which it is in case of string theory. We might never be able to test some predictions of string theory, that doesn't mean we can't test any, the seemingly easiest target is SUSY.

>SUSY
So I hear they're gonna make a super LHC for that. Do you know if that's actually viable? It sounds to me like if we're gonna get evidence for SUSY, we'd need a massive increase in energy, orders of magnitude higher than the LHC. Would a bigger particle accelerator really cut it, or are physicists just pushing for an extremely risky gamble?

We have no idea which of those countless universes that string theory can describe is close enough to our universe. That LHC would see SUSY was the most optimistic wish of theoretical physicist, but my guess is as good as your in whether LHC will see SUSY. We don't know when SUSY breaking occurs in our universe, it is possible it happens at very high energy scales and we won't be able to see it for quite some time. In any case, building larger colliders isn't a gamble, since there has to be some new physics there and bigger colliders can uncover it.

>physics undergrad
Yeah that's where I stopped reading.