6 ms·

It means in essence, that we live in the two-dimensional space, which contains just enough information (thanks to interference patterns), to be projectable to

by X4 13y ago

It means in essence, that we live in the two-dimensional space, which contains just enough information (thanks to interference patterns), to be projectable to the 3rd dimension. In holographic duality, this is a way to derive a more complex dimension from the next lowest dimension. It is thought that the four-dimensional space, which you may have just been thinking about, exists due to distant entangled quarks and may be the thing we call space-time. The holy grail every physicist is searching for is "gravity". Nobody on earth knows for sure what gravity exactly is. But it is thought to exist in the fifth-dimension "bends & shapes the our space-time. Don't confuse this with the simulated universe theory, as I initially did. That's a whole nother story. Time is believed to not exist as a separate dimension, but as a byproduct of gravity. -- Please correct me, if I'm wrong on something.

a3voices 13y ago
> we live in the two-dimensional space, which contains just enough information I would change "just enough information" to "much more than enough". If it was just enough, then the universe would be an enormous black hole. Note that I'm not an expert, and I could be wrong, but this is my interpretation.
- eru 13y ago
  Wasn't it the other way round? That black holes have maximum entropy, not minimal entropy?
- X4 13y ago
  Thinking about the universe as a massive black hole, whereas black holes are a concept that is still not entirely known makes thinking about this subject highly speculative. This list only adds salt to that wound: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_ph... But to me Black Holes are spinning L-Systems which distribute information in the universe instantly by quantum teleportation. This is much simpler than other existing theories which leave open question like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Open_questions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Open_questions Take this information with caution, but these paper supports such possibility: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310003 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310003 http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.1715 http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.1715 http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/25/7/075011 http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/25/7/075011
  - X4 13y ago
    It simultaneously explains why Quantum fluctuations [1] as described by Werner Heisenberg's famous "Uncertainty Principle" occur. -- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
mattlutze 13y ago
"Time is believed to not exist as a separate dimension, but as a byproduct of gravity." I love this comment because I hadn't heard ^^ perspective before. Do you know what particular schools / models treat time this way, or are you inferring that this is the general conclusion of the field?
- X4 13y ago
  No, that is not what's believed in general, but gains in attractivity as a possible solution. That's because, it's simpler. I have read about it on various blogs and have also seen an inspiring TED talk about it, before it got removed. Here's a similar video: The Origin of the Universe and the Arrow of Time by Sean Carroll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_QMnG232Js http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_QMnG232Js
jheriko 13y ago
i think its quite well established that space and time break down as approximations at the small scale. i also think that gravity is interesting because in GR there really isn't such a thing - its an artefact of the geometry of space and time - because of how we perceive the passing of time. i'm not sure exactly how time would fall out of gravity... afaik the quantum mechanical descriptions usually break the magic trick of GR and make it into a graviton field, which depends on some background time. i do wonder why we pursue theories which our existing theories show to be unlikely to be fundamental... thinking about the limits, near the planck scale we find that it is impossible to tell if an event is before or after, or if a thing is one or two things, or if its seperated in x or y... the simple conclusion imo is that space and time are approximations that are useful at everyday scales, but have no physical reality.
X4 13y ago
Please watch this 15min TEDx Video by Sean Caroll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y350oOiunf4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y350oOiunf4

by X4 13y ago

a3voices 13y ago

> we live in the two-dimensional space, which contains just enough information I would change "just enough information" to "much more than enough". If it was just enough, then the universe would be an enormous black hole. Note that I'm not an expert, and I could be wrong, but this is my interpretation.

eru 13y ago
Wasn't it the other way round? That black holes have maximum entropy, not minimal entropy?
X4 13y ago
Thinking about the universe as a massive black hole, whereas black holes are a concept that is still not entirely known makes thinking about this subject highly speculative. This list only adds salt to that wound: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_ph... But to me Black Holes are spinning L-Systems which distribute information in the universe instantly by quantum teleportation. This is much simpler than other existing theories which leave open question like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Open_questions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Open_questions Take this information with caution, but these paper supports such possibility: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310003 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0310003 http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.1715 http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.1715 http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/25/7/075011 http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/25/7/075011
- X4 13y ago
  It simultaneously explains why Quantum fluctuations [1] as described by Werner Heisenberg's famous "Uncertainty Principle" occur. -- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

mattlutze 13y ago

"Time is believed to not exist as a separate dimension, but as a byproduct of gravity." I love this comment because I hadn't heard ^^ perspective before. Do you know what particular schools / models treat time this way, or are you inferring that this is the general conclusion of the field?

X4 13y ago
No, that is not what's believed in general, but gains in attractivity as a possible solution. That's because, it's simpler. I have read about it on various blogs and have also seen an inspiring TED talk about it, before it got removed. Here's a similar video: The Origin of the Universe and the Arrow of Time by Sean Carroll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_QMnG232Js http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_QMnG232Js

jheriko 13y ago

i think its quite well established that space and time break down as approximations at the small scale. i also think that gravity is interesting because in GR there really isn't such a thing - its an artefact of the geometry of space and time - because of how we perceive the passing of time. i'm not sure exactly how time would fall out of gravity... afaik the quantum mechanical descriptions usually break the magic trick of GR and make it into a graviton field, which depends on some background time. i do wonder why we pursue theories which our existing theories show to be unlikely to be fundamental... thinking about the limits, near the planck scale we find that it is impossible to tell if an event is before or after, or if a thing is one or two things, or if its seperated in x or y... the simple conclusion imo is that space and time are approximations that are useful at everyday scales, but have no physical reality.

X4 13y ago

Please watch this 15min TEDx Video by Sean Caroll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y350oOiunf4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y350oOiunf4