3 ms·

For a complete layman this sounds cool. Can someone with proper knowledge weigh in and tell me if this is non-sense or not? EDIT: Nevermind, other comments ar

For a complete layman this sounds cool. Can someone with proper knowledge weigh in and tell me if this is non-sense or not? EDIT: Nevermind, other comments are clearing things up for me.

pantulis 4y ago
This is pop-sci over speculative theoretical physics. Whether it makes sense to "popularize" this stuff or not, I think it makes for a great mind bending and fun read --also generates incoming traffic. So why not?
- Lapsa 4y ago
  it was an interesting read indeed. "What if a black hole was actually a hologram, with the event horizon serving as the “film,” encoding what was inside?" got me good
random314 4y ago
None of the HN commentors have a background in theoretical physics. These are low quality bike shedding comments. The ny times article itself is of a much higher quality. The holographic principle has been established for decades now. HN is not the place where you will find useful discussions on physics.
- choxi 4y ago
  Are there better channels/forums?
  - random314 4y ago
    Ask physics reddit might be better. But I have never engaged there. I am a physics novice too, but I am familiar with Electro magnetic field theory and special relativity. Any physics discussion on HN is bike shedding, if not outright wrong. Veritasium on YouTube is probably the best educational physics resource out there.
- wrycoder 4y ago
  It has not been established. It’s just interesting and popular to play with. For one thing, our universe is not an anti-deSitter space, and the attempts to move the AdS models to flat space have not been successful, so far. If you have a reference showing that the holographic “principle” conforms to objective reality, please post it.
  - random314 4y ago
    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122540/why-are-anti-de-sitter-spaces-so-interesting-when-we-believe-the-universe-is-exp https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122540/why-are-a...

For a complete layman this sounds cool. Can someone with proper knowledge weigh in and tell me if this is non-sense or not? EDIT: Nevermind, other comments are clearing things up for me.

pantulis 4y ago

This is pop-sci over speculative theoretical physics. Whether it makes sense to "popularize" this stuff or not, I think it makes for a great mind bending and fun read --also generates incoming traffic. So why not?

Lapsa 4y ago
it was an interesting read indeed. "What if a black hole was actually a hologram, with the event horizon serving as the “film,” encoding what was inside?" got me good

random314 4y ago

None of the HN commentors have a background in theoretical physics. These are low quality bike shedding comments. The ny times article itself is of a much higher quality. The holographic principle has been established for decades now. HN is not the place where you will find useful discussions on physics.

choxi 4y ago
Are there better channels/forums?
- random314 4y ago
  Ask physics reddit might be better. But I have never engaged there. I am a physics novice too, but I am familiar with Electro magnetic field theory and special relativity. Any physics discussion on HN is bike shedding, if not outright wrong. Veritasium on YouTube is probably the best educational physics resource out there.
wrycoder 4y ago
It has not been established. It’s just interesting and popular to play with. For one thing, our universe is not an anti-deSitter space, and the attempts to move the AdS models to flat space have not been successful, so far. If you have a reference showing that the holographic “principle” conforms to objective reality, please post it.
- random314 4y ago
  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122540/why-are-anti-de-sitter-spaces-so-interesting-when-we-believe-the-universe-is-exp https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/122540/why-are-a...