[Pmb]

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.

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

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[JP]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

Hmm, so how would you argue about matter and our dimensions from the holographic principle JP?

[JP]

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.

[yor_on]

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]

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.

[Ethos_]

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.

[JP]

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.

[JP]

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.

[yor_on]

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.

[faytmorgan (OP)]

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

[faytmorgan (OP)]

for those that can watch youtube and haven't seen hook.

[yor_on]

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.

[yor_on]

And it is still becoming hand waving to me, I'm afraid. Excellent hand waving, based on mathematics, but not describing my universe. And so theoretical, if it in any way is a analogue to a hologram, then we should be able to see it experimentally. testing small scales.
=

And if you did read the link, you can compare it to this statement.

"The maximization of entropy postulated by the second law of thermodynamics, perhaps the most general law of physics, remains one of the most puzzling issues in contemporary science. There have been at least twenty other different and often mutually exclusive definitions of entropy.

Thermodynamic entropy (Gibbs) always increases; statistical entropy Boltzmann) tends to increase, while informational entropy (Shannon) decreases with the arrival of a message. In Shannon's equation, entropy and information are positively related, but many authors consider information as negative entropy.

This terminological confusion reflects deep conceptual discrepancies. Contemporary science includes three contradictory models: (1) Mechanics (Newtonian, relativistic, quantic or statistical), postulating static structures and reversible change; time reversibility implies a cosmic symmetry and the conservation of information. (2) Evolutionary theories that postulate a temporal increase in complexity and diversity. (3) Thermodynamics, postulating involution toward resting equilibrium (Clausius) and disorder (Boltzmann).

Statistical Mechanics provides a scenario in which mechanism and thermodynamics can coexist by explaining entropy as a probabilistic phenomenon; however, it allows for reversibility (excluded by the second law), it fails to explain why either evolution or irreversibility occur, and it must explain the tendency to maximize entropy as the result of initial conditions, which are both arbitrary and untestable.

Two solutions have been offered to the contradiction between evolution and thermodynamics: (a) the expansion of space, both physical, and genetic; and (b) the hypothesis that entropy increases necessarily only in closed systems, whereas open systems such as biological organisms and other complex processes may reduce their internal entropy by importing free energy from the environment, and exporting entropy to it."

From "Entropy as symmetry: theory and empirical support".  By Sabelli, H. (1994)

[faytmorgan (OP)]

what exactly is your point

[yor_on]

Well, it's about possible interpretations, and what they will do to ones formulation, and theory, relative experiments. I'm old fashioned I like experiments proving a point.

[Ethos_]

Well, it's about possible interpretations, and what they will do to ones formulation, and theory, relative experiments. I'm old fashioned I like experiments proving a point.

Absolutely yor_on, it's called the scientific method..............