The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is it possible to bend some space-time?  (Read 15934 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #50 on: 21/04/2013 12:51:55 »
Yeah, you can copy and recreate states, possibly, by entanglements. But the information about the state will need to go by 'c' as far as I know. So it's not FTL, and imagine us doing it to some piece of matter? You must destroy it, to be able to copy it. Unless you find a way to use condensates, possibly? But then we're speaking bosons, or alternatively materials that becomes bosonic under extreme temperatures. Although I've seen propositions that define matter as entangled I don't see how they will become one Bose–Einstein condensate.

But then, as a alternative, we have this idea of micro states, able to present us with something similar, using exotic materials. What I'm aiming on is that either you search and destroy to copy, or you find a way to describe a 'composite state' simplifying it into one description that you can send by light speed to recreate. All of this also assume that 'c' is the limit for information.
 

Offline faytmorgan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #51 on: 21/04/2013 14:08:22 »
Perhaps - instead of searching how the universe is a hologram, you need to first understand what a hologram is and how it works. the problem with you not using visuals is this. describe to me a birtch tree and the difference (in words alone, compared to a maple) as if i have never seen a tree before. good luck. visuals are there for a reason. i posted the video because susskind used a great set of visuals and honestly, if you didn't want visuals his set of word choices were excellent.

regardless of how your or anyone else learns, i think you need to understand what a hologram is first. one of the statements you made on page 2 of this thread was about is it "real" or not. a hologram is still real. just because its a hologram doesn't make it any less real. this isn't star treck. its a way to project and store information- is the best way i know how to describe it in my own words. I know that is not the entire explanation but i think for your sake, you should find an article on what a hologram is so you can find something that you understand. post the article so that we can see if there is any terrible flaws with it. then we can move on to talk more about what it would mean for the universe to store and project information in that manner.
 

Offline faytmorgan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #52 on: 21/04/2013 14:09:57 »
on a slightly differing note although i believe this applies. here is an article my friend sent me in relation to this topic.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.0785v1.pdf [nofollow]
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #53 on: 21/04/2013 15:29:59 »
Well I think I know what a ordinary hologram is. It's something made from a dimension less property called light, in this case a laser. You let it light up the object, splitting the coherent light (laser) in two parts, one becoming a reference beam, the other becoming what illuminates the object. What you get is a 'film' that becomes a pattern, describing the light interfering with itself bouncing at the object, and then back to your film. And it is the way light interferes with itself that will give you the three dimensional representation. All from the pattern inscribed on that plate. But that's not what we call a three dimensional reality. To get from that to matter you have a long way to go as I think. And if someone know how to explain how we get to matter from light interfering, quenching and reinforcing, I'm really interested.

Light does that all the time, on its way from a sun to us, assuming waves and propagation.
So?
==

Forgot to point out that what it does illuminating, scattering and refracting, etc, on the object, is also to get redirected due to those very real dimensions the object have, as well as microscopically, its texture. So 'dimensions' are here, and so are light. but to get light as a dimension you need to lead into evidence how light produce a real, touch able, dimension. And also explain how that one differ from the two left behind.
« Last Edit: 21/04/2013 15:35:47 by yor_on »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #54 on: 21/04/2013 15:42:11 »
The term "holographic" is unfortunate because it implies some connection between the holographic principle and visible light holography.  The only real connection is that both describe a higher dimensional volume by information encoded in a lower dimensional surface.  The physics behind both are completely different. 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #55 on: 21/04/2013 15:57:22 »
Nah, no slight intended but I'm actually getting tired on the way I find all and each one reasoning, more and more abstractly, using some theoretical hypothesis to prove new theoretical hypothesizes, also calling it science. Science is to me when you have a hypothesis, building it on repeatable experiments. From those and your new hypothesis suggesting a way to prove your concept by a experiment. To do it the other way becomes a sort of philosophy to me, not as stringent as what you can find on a good philosophy site as Stanford.edu, no matter what mathematics it use to then define new mathematics, relating to new ideas, defining another new hypothesis, searching for some more mathematics fitting your ideas, defining ..... etc etc

Hogans holometer is a earnest try for that experiment, although not all agree on his definitions around it, being equivalent to how SR defines it. Testing the Holographic Principle.

This is a better order to do it from, than building assumptions on assumptions, ad infintium, to me. Make it a repeatable experiment, proving something not noticed before, but explainable from your hypothesis. Then you at least have a stepping stone existing in reality.


And here is a rather nice description of how you, and me, can make our own hologram.
How to Make Holograms.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #56 on: 21/04/2013 16:00:05 »
Yes, I know JP, but so many connect it to a hologram, finding that one proving the next one. And I still stand by repeatable experiments being the grounding stone from where theory need to be proven, or a hypothesis.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #57 on: 21/04/2013 16:03:13 »
Eh, the one after (your post) was not a reply to you JP, btw. It was a reply to the paper linked before. You're making sense, the paper though :) A hypothesis building on a hypothesis, to me  that is.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #58 on: 21/04/2013 16:16:06 »
Yes, I know JP, but so many connect it to a hologram, finding that one proving the next one. And I still stand by repeatable experiments being the grounding stone from where theory need to be proven, or a hypothesis.

No one is really connecting the physics of a visible light hologram to the holographic principle.  Again, its just an unfortunate choice of terms due to the fact that both involve information in a volume being contained in a surface bounding that volume--the physics of how this works in both cases is completely different.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #59 on: 21/04/2013 16:16:49 »
If Verlinde would have suggested it here, us not knowing who he is, I think it would have landed in New theories as he became more and more convinced :) also assuming less mathematics. Then again, Verlinde is interesting, also connecting a lot of stuff. Like he connects gravity to entropy. But to state that we have 'black hole physics' is to imply that we can experiment on it, but we can't. The closest we might have in terms of analogue, is experiments with light. And there I expect you to know that better than me?
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #60 on: 21/04/2013 16:28:32 »
Quote from: yor_on
And the entanglement in this case can be done with a beamsplitter, separating one photon into two, down converting the original photons energy 1 to two photons of .5, in where the subsequent photons now will have opposite polarizations (spin) and so be 'entangled'.
I don't understand this. You can't split one photon into two and you can't change the energy of a photon with a beam splitter. To change the energy of a photon at best you need to scatter if off a charged particle. But you can't say that the scattered photon was the same as the original one. As for energy there is a device which combines photons to increase their energy. They use them in the Nova fusion laser facility. I forget what its called though.

Quote from: yor_on
The weird thing about entanglements are that they are supposed to instantly set their states as fast as you measure on one. Either you can assume some hidden parameter creating the 'spins', at their creation? Or you can assume a entanglement to ignore distance and light speed.
As I understand it there are no hidden variables. If there were then Bell's inequality would be valid and experiments have shown that it isn't.

You can ignore the speed of light in regards to entanglement since no information can be transmitted using it, so the claim goes. At least nobody has figured out a way to do it. However there have been claims to that effect. E.g.

Faster than Light? Raymond Y. Chiao, Paul G. Kwiat and Aephraim M. Steinberg, Scientific American, August 1993

Quote from: yor_on
Also, there is no way for you to know what the spin will be on the particle you measure on, before the measurement. It has a 50% chance to be 'up' or 'down'. But no matter what polarization/spin it is found to be, the other particle will 'know' and set the opposite.
A good way to view this is to consider a box with two marbles in it one which is black and the other white. Two people take a marble but don't look at it. They agree to travel in opposite directions at near the speed of light for a period of one year and then stop and look a their marble. Just because one person sees his marble to be black and knows that the other person is looking at a white marble it doesn't mean that information is traveling faster than the speed of light.

If there really were hidden variables then charged particles moving around atoms would be moving on classical trajectories and radiating energy. Since they aren't then there are no hidden variables.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #61 on: 21/04/2013 16:31:10 »
And the holographic principle still need to define what differs one dimension (and a arrow) from the two left, as I see it. To make one a expression you should be able to differ it in some physical way, preferably experimentally. If you can't you better be able to explain why you can't, in practice reducing it all to no 'dimensions' at all. I prefer ideas using strings/loops for describing it myself. They do not fit what we see, but they are at least coherent in the way they treat a universe.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #62 on: 21/04/2013 16:37:33 »
I'm not sure the point your arguing here, Yor_on.  I don't disagree with the holographic principle.  I don't know enough about it to critique it.  I am an expert in optical holography, though, and the two are not related other than the analogy that both describe information about a volume from information over a surface.  The physics for how that information gets encoded on a surface is completely different (as is the nature of the information and the make-up of the surface...)

It's a bit like the (unrelated) case of using a rubber sheet as an analogy to general relativity.  There's some nice conceptual points to be made by comparing the two, but no physicist would confuse space-time for a rubber sheet since they're physically two completely different things.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #63 on: 21/04/2013 16:39:33 »
It's simply that beam splitter leave you two photons in stead of one, of half the 'original' energy Pete. Or do you see it differently? As for the physical process? Depends on how you define it, doesn't it? As waves, or photons, or both :) How would you define it?

Well, hidden variables are still a proposition, as I've read it, and I don't think it have changed. As for information being transfered, I've had a prolonged discussion on physics forums about it, also involving another scientist defining a proposition from where you might consider it 'information' being transfered.

I don't expect it too?
Do you?

As for the next statement, that one you better expand your thoughts on.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #64 on: 21/04/2013 16:41:39 »
Hmm, so how would you argue about matter and our dimensions from the holographic principle JP?
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #65 on: 21/04/2013 16:45:03 »
Hmm, so how would you argue about matter and our dimensions from the holographic principle JP?

I wouldn't.  I don't know enough about the theory to discuss it.  I was just pointing out that there are errors in the arguments here that holography (optical) and the holographic principle are closely related.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #66 on: 21/04/2013 16:48:11 »
And I think I said I knew it? I used it as reply not to you. Why not read the post above to see what I was replying too?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #67 on: 21/04/2013 16:51:54 »
My main point still withstands, if someone feel itself qualified to define a holographic universe I will be very interested, as long as I get it in the clearest words possible.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1278
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #68 on: 21/04/2013 17:08:50 »
My main point still withstands, if someone feel itself qualified to define a holographic universe I will be very interested, as long as I get it in the clearest words possible.
Not sure if I'm capable of generating the thought in word but I'll try.

The issue has to do with duality as I see it. On the one hand, we have a point particle but we also have the wave. This description is only an approximation and I'm sure many will find flaws. Just remember that it is only a picture of reality, the fine detail is something else.

Think of the photon first as a point particle. This point can be described as a locality in space. However, the wave has no precise locality, only a point of origin. The wave moves thru space at c, as a 360 degree shell from it's origin. Even though the wave can only move at c, the wave has constant communication with all degrees of this spherical shell. And this communication within the wave shell is not limited by c because, for the wave to exist, there must be a continuity between all sections of it.

At least, this is how I see it. I'm quite willing to accept my error on this but for this to occur, someone will need to explain how a wave can maintain it's integrity moving at c without loosing communication with all of it's parts.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #69 on: 21/04/2013 17:16:39 »
And I think I said I knew it? I used it as reply not to you. Why not read the post above to see what I was replying too?

Yor_on, I think we have too many different thoughts going on in this thread and too many cross posts, which has confused me about who you're actually addressing in your posts.  Do you essentially agree agree that optical holograms and the holographic principle are unrelated?  My original post was directed at the idea that the two might be related.

I don't know much about the holographic principle, which is why I've stayed out of the thread, but I do know enough to pop in and point out when someone's taking a wrong track by trying to relate it to optical holography.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #70 on: 21/04/2013 17:25:46 »
From the non-expert understanding I have of the holographic principle, it came from black holes and the idea that if a particle fell in, the information about it was somehow lost (black holes classically are supposed to only differ from each other in mass, charge and angular momentum, while particles have much more information than those 3 quantities.)

Those working on the marriage of quantum mechanics and gravity found that some theories predicted that a particle falling into a black hole would deform event horizon of the black hole in such a way that information about the particle was preserved.  This would mean that information about the particle which is now inside the volume of the black hole is somehow encoded on its surface. 

I believe that further work has extended this to the universe as a whole and suggests that the information inside the universe is the same as the information encoded on the boundary of the universe.  If that's true, you should be able to do describe all physics in the universe by working on the surface, rather than within the volume of the universe. 

That's the high level summary as I understand it, but I don't know details well enough to comment in any depth on it.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #71 on: 21/04/2013 17:48:09 »
sorry JP, it's me mood :)

And yes, I agree. The holographic principle is an entirely different beast to me than a hologram, although it indeed can be seen as a analogue thinking of it. Anyone remember Beckenstein radiation? Apropos charges? Think we had a discussion about it before, somewhere here?  And the Bekenstein bound. That and Hawking radiation created a heated debate from where the holographic principle seem to have been formulated Bekenstein-Hawking entropy And it is a question of entropy, and strings possibly?

And so extremely theoretical, although very interesting. Beckenstein have both suggested a modified GR, as well as questioning rest mass. And I still don't know what a holographic universe will be defined on.
 

Offline faytmorgan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #72 on: 21/04/2013 18:01:29 »
Holy particle beam batman! I am not on this for about a couple hours and it blows up. OK. hmm- I think i said somewhere in this thread that its LIKE a hologram. Akin to a hologram. Not that it IS a hologram. More that the information stored and presented is akin to how a hologram works. meaning - YES, they are separate things. They are not one and the same, just very similar. its akin to saying "that shirt is red as an apple" rather than saying" that shirt IS an apple". The fact that the shirt is the universe and the apple and its visible color is an attribute comparable to the universe (the apple and its red{ness} are the hologram) we have a red apple principle.

I may just convoluted that even more- albeit this helps me personally visualize it. - yes, i am donning a red shirt. :)

either way, if you had watched either youtube video, and you understand quantum entanglement- I think the end result of this is after realizing this information, there ends up being another question to an answer, what does this mean? hence my thought pattern going to if you believe it does it become real?

have any of you seen the movie "hook" with dustin hoffman directed by steven spielburg? remember the scene in which robin williams as peter pan is at a dinner table and all these kids are eating this invisible food? then when robin williams finally starts "imagining/playing/believing" the food becomes real - actually real? that is my thought, what if this was taken to a larger scale. if we are part of the information storage device (the hologram storage unit?) then in hypothesis by thinking something is real it could very well become real if enough units (believed) it was real.

btw YES the hologram principle is a result of attempting to explain what we have studied (the very little amount...) and witnessed about black holes. at least, that is my perception- i could be incorrect. although at this point, none of you can prove i exist. you could be imagining all of this right now. you could be imagining me. although i think the real problem is - what the heck is wrong with you that you would imagine me ;)
 

Offline faytmorgan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #73 on: 21/04/2013 18:05:14 »
for those that can watch youtube and haven't seen hook.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #74 on: 21/04/2013 18:17:52 »
Morgan, try to find their sources instead, and use, link, them. I'm sure there are more than me wanting to stay out of too Megabyte eating environments :)
=

I like probability myself, not too hot on defining what a dimension should be. And then we have fields, I'm having trouble defining those from my own ideas of locality, although the concept knits very closely to the ideas of wave functions in my mind, expressed as 'dimension less' qualities/properties, and so also quantum mechanics. I mean, it seem to fit, doesn't it? Fields and wave functions, and probabilities/statistics aka quantum mechanics. But to those believing in a holographic principle fields might have to go, and if they go, what else?

Take a look here Information in the Holographic Universe by Jacob D. Bekenstein [July 14,2003]  and no, it does not answer what matter is, not as I read it at least, it suggest how a universe might be built.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Is it possible to bend some space-time?
« Reply #74 on: 21/04/2013 18:17:52 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length