[faytmorgan (OP)]

That is unfortunate that you can't get on youtube- leonard susskind has the best explanation i have seen thus far of what is going on. can you access Wikipedia?

[yor_on]

Well, I was on a site where it was extensively discussed for some years, that doesn't mean I know it though Me, I want it simple. Relaying 'c' to a arrow is simple, and logically deductible. Discussing Bomh, Aspen, entanglements becomes a lot more tricky, involving a lot of mathematics, that you better get for real if you want to see what they mean. And to then explain what you get, without the mathematics, making it logical, and understandable in words, is one big step further to me.

Have seen a lot of hand waving on the subject, but nobody has come near to make it logic in words for me.

[yor_on]

And there is one thing more. It's not satisfying to me to assume one dimension replaced by a holographic principle. Why would we need the two others? I call that archetypes. Think that was my first instinctive response too either you have a universe where dimensions actually, and for real (whatever that is in this thinking) exist. Or you don't. doesn't mean that it has to be wrong though, just not fitting my taste.
=

And then there are the arrow too, would that be a result of a holographic principle too?
But I'm still waiting for the guy or gal, actually able to describe it.
Or I will be forced to do it   and we all know where that will end )

[yor_on]

There is one simple way to test is. If the universe gets blurry on a small scale, then you might assume this having to do with you using just some percent of the 'full information'. A hologram, breaking it into pieces, will still contain all information, but it will blur, the further down in scale you go. So if we are a hologram we will get out of 'focus' at a small scale. There have been one test I know of that says 'No', another that says 'Yes, or, at least Maybe' and then we have hogans holometer that is built for probing very small scales 'fuzziness'.

But the main irritation for me is the one keeping two dimensions, questioning a third. Also trying to see the arrow as a construct from it, or rather, observer dependencies, because I do not see how it explain 'c'.

Which one do we take away:)
Length, width or height.

[Ethos_]

Well, I was on a site where it was extensively discussed for some years, that doesn't mean I know it though Me, I want it simple. Relaying 'c' to a arrow is simple, and logically deductible.

The simplest way I know to define this is the comparison of our universe to a black hole. Susskind had a disagreement with Hawking on this several years ago and in the end, Hawking had to admit that Susskind was right.

No information is lost to a Black Hole because it is all retained at the event horizon. Susskind compares the surface of the event horizon to the outer limits of our universe. And argues that reality is very much like a Hologram, where events occurring everywhere in the universe are connected with copies of this information occurring also at this outer shell.

I agree that anyone interested should also watch the video.

[Ethos_]

BTW, Leonard Susskind is the Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics and Director of the Stanford Institute of Theoretical Physics. His expertise involves particle physics and gravitational physics at Stanford University.

[yor_on]

I use word solely, images are manipulative, steering you into views. Words on the other hand needs you. It will be your brain making that image, or movie, and none will be the same. Because to me each brain have different views, and when you find a way to use it, you grow And books have that effect, if one have the patience to read them. I love books, but I stopped looking at the telly, decades ago.

[yor_on]

Then again, I do use images, but sparsely. when I do it, it is to press home some view I have.

nobody's perfect

[lightarrow]

as long as that it is not lude- then yes. btw the dictionary here is not picking up the word lude- that indeed, IS a word...

You wrote:
<<The entangled particles somehow contain or transmit information with no contact. >>
My ironic answer intended that what qualifies entanglement is not that, because we can transmit information with no contact with a simple radio transmission.
Second, and more important, with entanglement you cannot transmit information.

[Ethos_]

Interesting article regarding quantum teleportation:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/129246-chinese-physicists-achieve-quantum-teleportation-over-60-miles

[yor_on]

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.

[faytmorgan (OP)]

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.

[faytmorgan (OP)]

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]

[yor_on]

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.

[JP]

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. 

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[JP]

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.

[yor_on]

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?