To them, I said,-Plato, The Republic (Book VII)
the truth would be literally nothing
but the shadows of the images..
The inference of dimensional attributes scares many good minds away from the matters at hand?:)
Lubos Motl:
The only truly open questions about the interpretation of quantum mechanics are those that also require us to understand dynamics of quantum gravity properly.
I think Gerard t' Hooft would like to change the way we see quantum mechanics? Non!
The Holographical Principle
I must add a very important note. It is still hard for me to believe that Lee Smolin wrote something that could imply that *he* was the author of the conjecture. Lee Smolin has nothing to do with the discovery of the holographic principle and I hope that he always refers to the real authors properly-and it was just you who did not read carefully enough. The holographic conjecture, based on the Bekenstein's bounds and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole,has been first proposed by Gerard 't Hooft and discussed in more detail by Lenny Susskind:
But my point is, that if we are lead to the understanding of gravity as GR does, then why would we not entertain the idea, that there are forces of gravity stronger, and areas, that are weaker?
Of course, to Plato this story was just meant to symbolize mankind's struggle to reach enlightenment and understanding through reasoning and open-mindedness. We are all initially prisoners and the tangible world is our cave. Just as some prisoners may escape out into the sun, so may some people amass knowledge and ascend into the light of true reality.
What is equally interesting is the literal interpretation of Plato's tale: The idea that reality could be represented completely as `shadows' on the walls
How will the photon respond in such shadows?
Why would we not extend this vision from GR understanding well, that such resistance by Einstein, required deeper thinkers to respond to the theory that they had put forth in Solvay?
by Jacob D. Bekenstein
TWO UNIVERSES of different dimension and obeying disparate physical laws are rendered completely equivalent by the holographic principle. Theorists have demonstrated this principle mathematically for a specific type of five-dimensional spacetime ("anti–de Sitter") and its four-dimensional boundary. In effect, the 5-D universe is recorded like a hologram on the 4-D surface at its periphery. Superstring theory rules in the 5-D spacetime, but a so-called conformal field theory of point particles operates on the 4-D hologram. A black hole in the 5-D spacetime is equivalent to hot radiation on the hologram--for example, the hole and the radiation have the same entropy even though the physical origin of the entropy is completely different for each case. Although these two descriptions of the universe seem utterly unalike, no experiment could distinguish between them, even in principle.
It is thus, it challenged the views, of even the most determined thinkers, professional or not, once the paradox of thought experiment was introduced? Set the targets for research and developement and the initiatives of the younger generation to excell where the limtations had been drawn.
So in the one sense such a strong stance by Einstein was the incentive for a generation to prove its ability and prowness to overcome the limitations set by Einstein.
Do I believe he understood this?
Most assuredly so, for such conversation and thought experiments would have never been inrtroduced in such a forum, as to the require greater participation of thinkers to succeed. Some even to their death, still felt Eisntein's challenge, and we have a wonderful area of developement that has moved our visions to wonderful interactive feature of "gluonic perceptions."
I believe also that Lee Smolin, from his current work, is to instill and gather strong leaders to focus in a direction that Lubos has spotted, as a signature of Lee Smolin ways. To discern the quality and direction, before gravitonic abilities are ever encountered.
So yes such attempts are interesting, in that we see Glast detrmination as viable pathways to solving the understanding of the world around us and even going to great lengths, to move these consderation down to the level we might seee in such energetic features where such gravities might have exemplied a measured interactive feature like those of the Calorimetric design.
So the challenge was given to both sides of the camps to give us a way inwhich to see how such a challenge could measure progress? Is it not here, that such a stance holds each other accountable?
Lee Smolins ways expermentally are driven, even as the world of Strings are driven to bring perspective to the engagement, of the "way in which we see?" Careful challeneges to the interpretation, that such ideas are held within the scope of the Calorimentric view and all the while, the challenge has been a puzzle to that "missing energy" going someplace?
Where is this if such a boundary has been understood and the puzzle offered for introspection, that each other wants the other to understand it's limitations?
So now we have the place in which such a challenge should make itself known and we have the likes of Cern's delivery on microstate blackhole production, to have found it's associative feature in how we see interactive features can happen all around us without cern? >John Ellis is careful to draw these distinctions for us.
Do we have Proof of this Missing Energy? If the answer is yes, then the issue has not been resolved?
No comments:
Post a Comment