[lightarrow]

The same for me.

[yor_on]

Otherwise it is quite good

[yor_on]

Did anyone notice this?

"The future de Sitter event horizon world hologram is “our past light cone at the end of time”. It can be pictured as a pixelated spherical shell of area NL P infinitely far from our detectors (in proper time) on their future light cone, with thickness L P and duration L P/c. This shell, or “screen”, has 4D volume NL P with dark energy density hc/(4DVolume Hologram Screen).

This screen projects the voxels of our accelerating expanding 3D space hologram image back from the future - indeed, back to the moment of inflation 13.7 billion years ago in what Igor Novikov calls a “globally self-consistent” strange loop in time. To summarize: The area of an observer’s future de Sitter horizon holographically determines the dark energy density seen by that observer." (2009) paper.

[DoctorBeaver]

I knew that anyway  []

[km2g]

Gravity if faster than light. But what i understand is that matter can't travel beyond light speed. What of the matter that travels into a black hole? Aren't they traveling faster then light? Maybe in the BB gravity, being split from the other properties, was the first driving force. That would mean that if we could watch the event, materials could have been light years past us before we could even see the light. Would it then mean that light is still trying to catch up and what we see now or rather what we could measure is only 13.4 billion, visible light, years old?

[Vern]

"The future de Sitter event horizon world hologram is “our past light cone at the end of time”. It can be pictured as a pixelated spherical shell of area NL P infinitely far from our detectors (in proper time) on their future light cone, with thickness L P and duration L P/c. This shell, or “screen”, has 4D volume NL P with dark energy density hc/(4DVolume Hologram Screen).

I don't think I understand what this is about. Where is the hologram coming from? I must have missed that.

[DoctorBeaver]

The hologram thing is yet another bit of weirdness dreamed up by those nice string theory chaps. Some scientists from the UK & Germany have theorised that we're doing it all wrong by looking for extra dimensions. They say that there aren't even 3 spatial dimensions and that space acts the same way as a hologram where a 2d image is made to look 3d. It is only at low energy levels that a 3-dimensional description becomes effective. Information is somehow "painted" on the 2d surface that gives the illusion of 3d.

In their 2d model gravity doesn't exist, but blackholes & gravity waves do. I don't know how that works. It's all a bit much for my poor little brain.

[Vern]

I like the hologram idea; that might lead to some real world advances in holography. It would be nice to have holographic TV.

[lightarrow]

I like the hologram idea; that might lead to some real world advances in holography. It would be nice to have holographic TV.

Don't know if you have ever heard about the "Holographyc Universe" theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
http://community.livejournal.com/ref_sciam/1190.html

[DoctorBeaver]

Alberto - that's what I was referring to.

[lightarrow]

Alberto - that's what I was referring to.

I know, but I suspect Vern didn't know.

[yor_on]

That idea(s) is so very strange. If it was true we all would be nothing else than 'ideas'. All matter then would seem to become 'information'. And as some see information as constituting of 'bits' then "the fundamental particle is a bit (1 or 0) of information." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Limit_on_information_density

I prefer to believe in some sort of topological feature creating what we call matter Also that there should be some fractal principle guiding it. and when it comes to the smallest 'bits' I'm not sure that they exist, to me it seems more as if we are living in something (spacetime) that is created as a 'topological' reason of something else. To me we are baubles of improbability ) created from something we can't see, as fishes may not notice water. Maybe we can 'jump out' of it to see that other 'reality'. We should really try to understand what vacuum is, as it is there we see the clearest indications of something out of 'nothing'.

[Vern]

You're right lightarrow; I had never before encountered the notion of a holographic universe. I have some reading to do.

The holographic principle states that the entropy of ordinary mass (not just black holes) is also proportional to surface area and not volume; that volume itself is illusory and the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on the surface of its boundary.

This notion is really weird. It may take awhile for me to come to grips with it.

[Ethos]

We think that the early Universe expanded very rapidly - known as rapid inflation - exceeding the speed of light, which the expansion of the Universe today continues to do.

How is this compatible with light being the fastest thing in the Universe?

Chris

Has the following thought ever occured to anyone else here at Naked?

Is it possible that the expanding field created by the Big Bang determines the speed of c? Many thoughts about the true nature of constants have been put forth, some insisting that c, G, ect. have remained the same since the beginning. Others question whether they are truly constant after all. I fall into the class that believe they change relative to the conditions within the universal field. If this is so, during the time of the so-called inflation, the field expanded beyond the present limit for c but because the field itself determines that limit, the speed of light was not exceeded.

[Vern]

That is as good an explanation as any I have seen Ethos. My own speculation is that the universe didn't and is not now expanding. The expanding model is only necessary when we need to explain spectral analysis of distant objects. I do not know what it is, but I suspect there is some explanation that does not require such cavalier trashing of the physical laws of nature.

[DoctorBeaver]

I do not know what it is, but I suspect there is some explanation that does not require such cavalier trashing of the physical laws of nature.

I don't see that we trash the laws of nature. We don't know for certain what those laws are, or even if universal laws actually exist. All we can say is that they appear to hold true for the visible universe. There may be regions (domains) outside our visible universe where the laws are very different.

There are theories that during inflation the universe became fragmented, or maybe the fragmentation existed prior to inflation. It is these fragments that are surmised, in some theories, to be bounded by cosmic strings. Each fragment may have different laws. We happen to exist in 1 fragment where the laws are what they are.

If inflation did actually happen then there would not have been enough time for information to pass across all the domains so it is quite possible that constants such as c & g in those other domains are totally different. In fact, that is quite likely.

[yor_on]

Interesting  Myself I've thought of inflation as a 'topological defect' or maybe it's what came after inflation that is the 'topological defect' And that is as I think of space and matter as some kind of 'mirroring' of each other. So as soon we have 'matter' we will have 'space', and 'c'. But as I see it, that doesn't define what was before.

I've seen ideas expecting space to be, not counting in expansion, as big as today with 'matter' sort of coagulating out of particles and suns in that great wasteness. I don't think so myself though, I think inflation is some kind of 'state' where it all 'spreads out' if you like, but not involving distances at all, as distances is a property of our dimensions, What spacetime might be is a topological 'wonder child' creating 'distances' and 'dimensions', but before that there should be a 'transition' of some kind creating? mass? matter?

And a guess could then be that 'mass' is creating what we see as dimensions and 'space' today. But if one look at this way it still doesn't 'explain' how particles bounds into dead and living matter. But you can see it as a field too perhaps, interchangeable in itself. I see spacetime as something not easily divisible though, although we observe different 'forces' as coexisting

[DoctorBeaver]

Interesting   Myself I've thought of inflation as a 'topological defect' or maybe it's what came after inflation that is the 'topological defect' And that is as I think of space and matter as some kind of 'mirroring' of each other. So as soon we have 'matter' we will have 'space', and 'c'. But as I see it, that doesn't define what was before.

But how would you account for the fact that matter didn't exist in the very early universe. It was far too hot. Space was there, but not matter.

[Ethos]

Interesting   Myself I've thought of inflation as a 'topological defect' or maybe it's what came after inflation that is the 'topological defect' And that is as I think of space and matter as some kind of 'mirroring' of each other. So as soon we have 'matter' we will have 'space', and 'c'. But as I see it, that doesn't define what was before.

But how would you account for the fact that matter didn't exist in the very early universe. It was far too hot. Space was there, but not matter.

Drawing an absolute differentiation between matter and energy is a tricky proposition. Remember the famous formula? E=mc^2

[yor_on]

Ah it's just me binding myself up in knots
But the idea is that this transition, if it ever happened, is what created what we call 'space', so no, there was nothing we call 'spacetime' before that. 'Mass' is what needs 'space', and 'space' without 'mass' is not there. It's highly implausible I guess but it suits my thinking, and it explains the concept of 'inflation' to me. If what we call dimensions and distance is a property of spacetime, then what we might have had before wasn't anything of that, just as Ethos, and yourself DB (hidden dimension) seems to thinks, that we need something not 'regulated' of those forces that binds spacetime today. I like my concept as it doesn't need to change any of the 'constants' that rule us. So what I'm thinking is that the concept of 'mass' needs 'space' and if we had a 'moment'(?) at the Big Bang where the 'state' was something else, not involving what we call 'dimensions' and then 'folded itself out' into what we see as 'mass' and 'space', as they need each other to be a working concept (spacetime' then space should be isotropic and without 'faults/rips' as that would circumvent us finding anything 'outside' it? So seen from a great 'height' with the vision of 'God' our spacetime could be totally different and no 'bauble' at all, but as we are only allowed certain ways of perceiving it will still be a 'whole' to us. And it would also mean that there is no least indivisible 'thingie' if we won't count a different topology to be that 'knot'. The forces we see I think is wholly 'spacetimes' and will have no meaning 'outside' of it. Kind of crazy huh.