Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

  1.  
  2.  
    Now here's a curious thing linking The Holographic Principle and String Theory to the Newtonian gravity limit. Coincidence? - I think not...
    http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/73978/newtonian-gravity-from-the-holographic-principle?newsletter=1&nlcode=96450|8d85
    •  
      CommentAuthoroak
    • CommentTimeAug 14th 2013 edited
     
    .

    A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox

    "A paradox around matter leaking from black holes puts into question various scientific axioms: Either information can be lost; Einstein’s principle of equivalence is wrong; or quantum field theory needs fixing."

    Article:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/science/space/a-black-hole-mystery-wrapped-in-a-firewall-paradox.html

    Graphic summary:
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/13/science/0813-sci-blackhole.html
    • CommentAuthorLakes
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2013
     
    Posted By: oak.

    A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox

    "A paradox around matter leaking from black holes puts into question various scientific axioms: Either information can be lost; Einstein’s principle of equivalence is wrong; or quantum field theory needs fixing."

    Article:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/science/space/a-black-hole-mystery-wrapped-in-a-firewall-paradox.html

    Graphic summary:
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/13/science/0813-sci-blackhole.html
    There's a (black) hole in your theory, dear Liza, dear Liza.
  3.  
    "Maldacena and Susskind posit that any time two quantum particles are entangled, they’re connected by a wormhole."

    I like it. It's very clear that, in some way or other, entanglement looks at ordinary 3+1 spacetime and laughs. A wormhole is one way to express that. But (gut feel) it's no ordinary wormhole - it's genuinely new physics.

    http://news.yahoo.com/wormholes-may-save-physics-black-hole-infernos-183800942.html
  4.  
    That's right, "wormhole" is the wrong metaphor. Things can go through holes, nothing can go through a "quantum entanglement".

    Spacetime events are connected, entangled if you will, by virtue of the fact that most of the dimensions of spacetime are not yet unfurled. You don't need a wormhole if everything there is, is contained within a 7-dimensional volume with unit side smaller than the Planck length.
  5.  
    My brain curls up too, when trying to imagine a microscopically curled up dimension here being directly connected, in that higher dimension, with the same place in that same curled up dimension there.

    Mathematically, though, it's just fine and dandy.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2013 edited
     
    But wormhole 'theorists' have no problem folding sheets of paper and showing how a single hole can punch through in two "separate" locations on the unfolded paper. Yet they conveniently forget about the higher dimensions (3 and 4) that they are folding the paper "through" and the distance, in that 3rd spatial dimension, between the holes in the 2-sheet.
  6.  
    The end points can be utterly coincident in the higher dimension. Not even one Planck length apart. That's the freedom that higher dimensions give.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanThe end points can be utterly coincident in the higher dimension. Not even one Planck length apart. That's the freedom that higher dimensions give.


    If the dimensions are wound up closed this is so. It has been suggested also that the ordinary xyz directions may be loops, just bigger.

    The problem is it's all just arse-scratching and it doesn't butter any parsnips.
  7.  
    I'm a little confused actually. If every point in 3D space has a curled up Calabi-Yau parsnip at that location, presumably all the curled-up bits connect to each other, and so presumably you can go lightyears in 3D space for next to no distance in the higher space. How does this work differently for a fully unrolled higher dimension?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2013
     
    I don't understand that. All the umpteen dimensions of space are orthogonal to each other. Going round and round a tiny dimension doesn't move you along any other dimension. How do you go lightyears in 3D space for no distance in another direction?
  8.  
    Just like two different values of x may have the same value of y, in a 2D example.
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanJust like two different values of x may have the same value of y, in a 2D example.

    That's a good example, and it also illustrates that you can't get from one (x,y) ordered pair to the next without travelling along the function being graphed, even though your 3-d godlike vantage point sees them both simultaneously.
  9.  
    even if god is curled up foetally?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2013
     
    Posted By: alsetalokin
    Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanJust like two different values of x may have the same value of y, in a 2D example.

    That's a good example, and it also illustrates that you can't get from one (x,y) ordered pair to the next without travelling along the function being graphed, even though your 3-d godlike vantage point sees them both simultaneously.


    Exactly. That's what "orthogonal" meant when I went to school, back in the days of papyrus and Pythagoras.
  10.  
    You could try crossing your eyes.
    That sometimes works with those "random noise" images that pop into 3-D relief if you stare long enough.
  11.  
    Doesn't work for me. They all end up looking like Dolly Parton
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2013
     
    Posted By: alsetalokinYou could try crossing your eyes.
    That sometimes works with those "random noise" images that pop into 3-D relief if you stare long enough.



    Julesz random dot stereograms. A very important invention in the unravelling of the visual system - proving that stereopsis precedes form recognition. I still don't know how that can possibly be - you have to relate all the dots individually rather than a few forms you would have already recognized.

    Respect...!

    You are probably thinking of the random dot autostereogram invented by Chris Tyler.
    • CommentAuthorLakes
    • CommentTimeAug 25th 2013
     
    I never could see the "image" in those damn autostereo pics, just got a headache.