3 ms·

I feel like articles like this quickly devolve into pseudo physics nonsense in attempting to explain such higher level, poorly understood, abstract ideas to lay

I feel like articles like this quickly devolve into pseudo physics nonsense in attempting to explain such higher level, poorly understood, abstract ideas to laymen, as they're barely just skimming the surface of ideas that only really exist as high level math. Not necessarily a fault of the journalist, it's just that words really cannot capture the breadth of information or the inquisitive power of what the physicists derived without some understanding of the symbolic system involved.

raducu 7y ago
As a layman, it makes me wonder what a hologram within a hologram within a hologram can explain.
- cuntcunt 7y ago
  The author of the article could sum it up by stating that the hypothesis is: Maybe Hawking radiation is deterministic, and not random, and that the quantum perturbations are not random, but guided by the structured deposition of all accumulations of infall upon the event horizon. So, if time stops at the event horizon (as the ivory tower claims to know as certain fact and absolute truth), then the infall of all energy and matter represents a recording of all eventful interactions. If these recordings are persistent (deposited into the non-temporal event horizon as holograms), then perhaps all Hawking emissions are capable of representing a high-fidelity replay of that holographic history in reverse, via a carrier signal that is very faint on a channel that we have yet to tune into. In other words, what if black hole archaeology is possible, via the interpretation of non-random Hawking radiation. But pop-science "journalists" are remedial school children, and they only know how to craft idiotic click bait. Shame, really.
- peter_d_sherman 7y ago
  You can think of it as information within other information within still other information... Simple 2D example (for programmers) -- you have a binary string, which can be looked at as a series of 1's and 0's, or as a series of 8-bit bytes. Well if we look at it as a series of bytes (think of that as the first "holographic" dimension, because the bytes don't really exist -- that is, all they really are is repeated groupings of 8-bits -- CPU's and programs and memory might work with data of that length and "see" them, but in essence, the string is is just 1's and 0's. So that's the first "holographic" dimension... bytes. But now, inside of that string are substrings -- discrete runs of shorter information. Let's think of those substrings as "holographic" dimension 2. From here, there could be even higher "holographic" dimensions, that is, let's say we observe only some substrings relative to a mathematical pattern, f(x). Well, you can think of f(x) -- and the resulting data it produces as a result of reading specific substrings in a specific order -- as living in a higher dimension, a "higher dimensional" "observer", if you will... Whenever you see the word "black hole" or "hologram" -- replace that with the word "information", and think about it from that perspective... usually there's something there... (It's also equally-and-oppositely possible that I'm a crackpot and don't know what I'm talking about -- take this explanation with the proverbial grain of salt... <g>)
  - QuanticSausage 7y ago
    I beg to differ on the proposition that you're a crackpot. That seems to me a perfectly mathematical way of thinking. If you're a crackpot, it's because all mathematicians are.
- ConcernedCoder 7y ago
  I wonder if it's holograms all the way down...
me_me_me 7y ago
So what? We have people believing in flat earth and fake moon landings, thinking vaccines are evil, homeopathy, following religions created by people giving video interviews. There will be dummies willing to believe in anything. They should not matter how science is shaped.
- misnome 7y ago
  Right, but does overly hand-wavy explanations representing itself as actual science help or hinder? If people conclude that "this is what science is like" then _no wonder_ we have the current informational problems. If people will "believe anything" then isn't that an argument against, rather than for, giving them more of the same?
mantap 7y ago
Yes imagine it wasn't black holes but instead the quadratic formula. And you had to explain it with only analogies and absolutely no mathematical notation. I'm sure you could make some kind of explanation but it's not going to be very helpful to anyone.
d0mine 7y ago
"If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it" Here's an example of a simple explanation that otherwise would require complex math https://youtu.be/ZcpwnozMh2U https://youtu.be/ZcpwnozMh2U

raducu 7y ago

As a layman, it makes me wonder what a hologram within a hologram within a hologram can explain.

cuntcunt 7y ago
The author of the article could sum it up by stating that the hypothesis is: Maybe Hawking radiation is deterministic, and not random, and that the quantum perturbations are not random, but guided by the structured deposition of all accumulations of infall upon the event horizon. So, if time stops at the event horizon (as the ivory tower claims to know as certain fact and absolute truth), then the infall of all energy and matter represents a recording of all eventful interactions. If these recordings are persistent (deposited into the non-temporal event horizon as holograms), then perhaps all Hawking emissions are capable of representing a high-fidelity replay of that holographic history in reverse, via a carrier signal that is very faint on a channel that we have yet to tune into. In other words, what if black hole archaeology is possible, via the interpretation of non-random Hawking radiation. But pop-science "journalists" are remedial school children, and they only know how to craft idiotic click bait. Shame, really.
peter_d_sherman 7y ago
You can think of it as information within other information within still other information... Simple 2D example (for programmers) -- you have a binary string, which can be looked at as a series of 1's and 0's, or as a series of 8-bit bytes. Well if we look at it as a series of bytes (think of that as the first "holographic" dimension, because the bytes don't really exist -- that is, all they really are is repeated groupings of 8-bits -- CPU's and programs and memory might work with data of that length and "see" them, but in essence, the string is is just 1's and 0's. So that's the first "holographic" dimension... bytes. But now, inside of that string are substrings -- discrete runs of shorter information. Let's think of those substrings as "holographic" dimension 2. From here, there could be even higher "holographic" dimensions, that is, let's say we observe only some substrings relative to a mathematical pattern, f(x). Well, you can think of f(x) -- and the resulting data it produces as a result of reading specific substrings in a specific order -- as living in a higher dimension, a "higher dimensional" "observer", if you will... Whenever you see the word "black hole" or "hologram" -- replace that with the word "information", and think about it from that perspective... usually there's something there... (It's also equally-and-oppositely possible that I'm a crackpot and don't know what I'm talking about -- take this explanation with the proverbial grain of salt... <g>)
- QuanticSausage 7y ago
  I beg to differ on the proposition that you're a crackpot. That seems to me a perfectly mathematical way of thinking. If you're a crackpot, it's because all mathematicians are.
ConcernedCoder 7y ago
I wonder if it's holograms all the way down...

me_me_me 7y ago

So what? We have people believing in flat earth and fake moon landings, thinking vaccines are evil, homeopathy, following religions created by people giving video interviews. There will be dummies willing to believe in anything. They should not matter how science is shaped.

misnome 7y ago
Right, but does overly hand-wavy explanations representing itself as actual science help or hinder? If people conclude that "this is what science is like" then _no wonder_ we have the current informational problems. If people will "believe anything" then isn't that an argument against, rather than for, giving them more of the same?

mantap 7y ago

Yes imagine it wasn't black holes but instead the quadratic formula. And you had to explain it with only analogies and absolutely no mathematical notation. I'm sure you could make some kind of explanation but it's not going to be very helpful to anyone.

d0mine 7y ago

"If you can’t explain something in simple terms, you don’t understand it" Here's an example of a simple explanation that otherwise would require complex math https://youtu.be/ZcpwnozMh2U https://youtu.be/ZcpwnozMh2U