Explanation of the Holographic Principle

lonegranger has asked me to explain in my own words how string theory provides evidence for a flat Earth.

In the interest of an intellectually honest, rational, and productive debate, I will do so here. If anyone is interested in learning more about the topics I discuss here, each title will be hyperlinked to the relevant Wikipedia article. This will also give you the term you want to search if you distrust Wikipedia.

Words, Words, Words
In our current understanding of physics, information cannot be created or destroyed. But to understand the implications of this, we first have to understand what information is.

In this context, information refers to the 'coding' of a particular thing, or what distinguishes one thing from another. Think of it like this;
A LEGO house may contain all the same bricks as a LEGO plane, but the information between the two is fundamentally different.

Just like matter itself, in our current understanding, information cannot be created or destroyed. It can, however, be transformed to a certain extent, which is why I can change my LEGO house to a LEGO plane. Theoretically, if we could know all the information held by the LEGO plane, we could reconstruct the LEGO house.

Spooky Black Holes
So, why is it problematic that information cannot be destroyed?
A black hole consumes information holders (the things formed out of information and matter), and to our current observations, destroys them.

There's a barrier in black holes called the 'event horizon'. This barrier represents the point where the gravitational pull of the black hole is so strong, nothing can escape, not even light. We have no way of knowing what happens beyond the event horizon, but we do know that when a star or a planet gets sucked beyond it, that star or planet is gone.

The matter of that consumed object is transformed into energy for the black hole to burn (a black hole will radiate away this energy as Hawking Radiation off the surface over time). But we don't know where the information goes.

It looks like all the different sorts of information, the information that codes a planet, the information that codes a star, the information that codes my LEGO house (no!), all gets turned into the same information.

So far we're fine, but what happens when a black hole disappears? I mentioned earlier that a black hole radiates energy off of its surface, eventually, this will lead to all of the energy radiating away, killing the black hole.

So what happens to all the information that the black hole sucked up? Where does it go?

This is very problematic. It is formally known as the Information Paradox. Information can't be destroyed, but it sure looks like it is.

The Holographic Principle
There are many resolutions to the Information Paradox, including pocket dimensions, "information diamonds" left behind after a black hole radiates all of its energy away, and many others. However, one explanation states that the information is stored on the surface of the black hole. In this scenario, the information isn't destroyed because the Hawking radiation can absorb that information as it radiates away.

The information isn't lost, current physics is fine, and the world works again.

But this raises another interesting question. If all the necessary information for everything in the universe can be encoded on the surface of a black hole, a 2D surface, then maybe our whole universe is like that. Maybe we're living on the surface of a black hole, projected into three dimensions but actually only in two. This is called the Holographic Principle.

If the holographic principle is true (and studies last year have indicated some preliminary evidence of its validity), then the information for the Earth could be encoded on a 2D surface. This surface might even be flat! The Holographic Principle also explains many smaller questions in science, like why gravity works on the small scale, and why quantum mechanics and general relativity both seem to be true.

This is how string theory could mean that the Earth is flat.

---

If you want an equally wordy but much more enjoyable explanation, check out this video:


It explains it very well, I was simply challenged to lay out the case in my own words. I hope I have done so here, but if you still have questions, watch the video and read the Wikipedia articles, they are very helpful!

Lots of words there. What is it that is said, a picture tells a thousand words...

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/earth-blue-marble-dscvr.jpg

As I have previously stated  ask any of the physicists who are involved in string theory or the holographic universe and ask them if they think the world is flat. Or would you rather just cherry pick?
Show me, show everyone one chair holding university physicists who lectures on string theory who believes in a flat earth.
 

Lots of words there. What is it that is said, a picture tells a thousand words...

You specifically asked me, several times, to present the case in my own words. You asked me to provide specific evidence. You asked me to do more. And you're going to dismiss my entire case, the one you had me spend over 20 minutes writing, on top of the days I've spent laying out the same points you refused flat-out to read, the one you asked for with "Lots of words there."

You're not even going to read those words; you've already posted a link to an image which is completely irrelevant to all the points I was discussing. I gave a video down the bottom if you didn't want to read, I linked to evidence written by actual scientists, I did everything you asked for and more.

Regarding your request to show everyone one chair holding university physicist who lectures on string theory who believes in a flat Earth, I have already done so in another thread.

It is clear to me, as I'm sure it is to everyone following this discussion, that you aren't interested in an intellectually honest discussion. As such, I will not be discussing this further with you.

lonegranger has asked me to explain in my own words how string theory provides evidence for a flat Earth.
This surface might even be flat!

You might want to learn what evidence is.
Saying A might be X, doesn't magically make it evidence that B is X.
You have provided no evidence for a flat Earth.
You haven't even provided evidence for a flat surface.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 02:45:49 AM

lonegranger has asked me to explain in my own words how string theory provides evidence for a flat Earth.
This surface might even be flat!

You might want to learn what evidence is.
Saying A might be X, doesn't magically make it evidence that B is X.
You have provided no evidence for a flat Earth.
You haven't even provided evidence for a flat surface.

I feel like you skipped out a couple of things in that quote there. Like, all the evidence I provided and all the citations I had.

I feel like you skipped out a couple of things in that quote there. Like, all the evidence I provided and all the citations I had.

Yes, I skipped a few things.
The things I skipped are irrelevant to the argument.
None of it shows Earth is flat like you claim.

You blather on about information and black holes and the holographic principle, but no where do you show that Earth is flat.

You specifically asked me, several times, to present the case in my own words. You asked me to provide specific evidence. You asked me to do more. And you're going to dismiss my entire case, the one you had me spend over 20 minutes writing, on top of the days I've spent laying out the same points you refused flat-out to read, the one you asked for with "Lots of words there."

You're not even going to read those words; you've already posted a link to an image which is completely irrelevant to all the points I was discussing. I gave a video down the bottom if you didn't want to read, I linked to evidence written by actual scientists, I did everything you asked for and more.

Looks like you've been dealing with a couple of the worst users of the forum, so bad luck there.

Interesting OP though. There are a couple of issues I can see in terms of using it as a FE model though, if you're willing to discuss.

The first is potentially more to do with my lack of knowledge of the field, but it seems to me that there is a substantial difference between the information contained in something, and that something. For example, if you have that lego plane you mentioned and know everything about it, you still don't have the lego house even if you have all the information necessary for it. The big step there is having some way to enact that information.
In the same way, no matter how much is recorded on the surface of a black hole, it's still just data. It might be all the information you need to make a world, but only as disassembled lego pieces, what is it that manufactures the world from the information? What is it that stops it being just the raw information?

Second, is how this ties to reality. Because while a holographic universe is an intriguing possibility, it seems hard to say that it implies a flat Earth. After all, if there's a holographic round Earth, then it's round in the same way anything is real, to us.
It's kinda like a movie. If you record a scene, and play it back, then it's displayed on a flat surface. However if you go into the perspective of the characters, it's all 3-D to them, and the fact it was recorded didn't change the number of dimensions in the world when it was recorded. Without some separate aspect to the model, to which I imagine much of the holographic effect would be irrelevant, you're left with more of a round Earth in a flat universe than any kind of flat Earth.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 09, 2018, 03:04:10 AM

Lots of words there. What is it that is said, a picture tells a thousand words...

You specifically asked me, several times, to present the case in my own words. You asked me to provide specific evidence. You asked me to do more. And you're going to dismiss my entire case, the one you had me spend over 20 minutes writing, on top of the days I've spent laying out the same points you refused flat-out to read, the one you asked for with "Lots of words there."

You're not even going to read those words; you've already posted a link to an image which is completely irrelevant to all the points I was discussing. I gave a video down the bottom if you didn't want to read, I linked to evidence written by actual scientists, I did everything you asked for and more.

Regarding your request to show everyone one chair holding university physicist who lectures on string theory who believes in a flat Earth, I have already done so in another thread.

It is clear to me, as I'm sure it is to everyone following this discussion, that you aren't interested in an intellectually honest discussion. As such, I will not be discussing this further with you.

It’s not evidence....no where does string theory say or infer the earth is flat, it’s your bonkers interpretation. The earth is not flat, gravity is real.
What the funny thing is you reject gravity without realising that gravity is a fundemental part of string theory. It just goes to show how little you actually understand.
In the first superstring revolution in 1984, many physicists turned to string theory as a unified theory of particle physics and quantum gravity. Unlike supergravity theory, string theory was able to accommodate the chirality of the standard model, and it provided a theory of gravity consistent with quantum effects. Though I guess you would now reject string theory as for some reason you don’t like gravity! Happy floating.

The first is potentially more to do with my lack of knowledge of the field, but it seems to me that there is a substantial difference between the information contained in something, and that something. For example, if you have that lego plane you mentioned and know everything about it, you still don't have the lego house even if you have all the information necessary for it. The big step there is having some way to enact that information.
In the same way, no matter how much is recorded on the surface of a black hole, it's still just data. It might be all the information you need to make a world, but only as disassembled lego pieces, what is it that manufactures the world from the information? What is it that stops it being just the raw information?

The Hawking radiation leaving the surface of the black hole has a chance of learning the information as it radiates away. This is one example of how the information of projected, or enacted.

Second, is how this ties to reality. Because while a holographic universe is an intriguing possibility, it seems hard to say that it implies a flat Earth. After all, if there's a holographic round Earth, then it's round in the same way anything is real, to us.
It's kinda like a movie. If you record a scene, and play it back, then it's displayed on a flat surface. However if you go into the perspective of the characters, it's all 3-D to them, and the fact it was recorded didn't change the number of dimensions in the world when it was recorded. Without some separate aspect to the model, to which I imagine much of the holographic effect would be irrelevant, you're left with more of a round Earth in a flat universe than any kind of flat Earth.

I can see your point, but to my mind since the perspective of the characters is wrong and they are 2D, then that trumps their perspective. I don't necessarily see how our flawed perspective is more valid than the scientific theory. The Earth only appears round to us, in actuality it is flat. I might be misunderstanding your argument though.

The Hawking radiation leaving the surface of the black hole has a chance of learning the information as it radiates away. This is one example of how the information of projected, or enacted.

It might just be my lack of knowledge of the theory, but I don't see how that could result in sentient beings. You'd need the radiation to projected in a specific order, for one, and to use the recording analogy again: emitting the photons to project an image of a movie, say, doesn't make the world real.

I can see your point, but to my mind since the perspective of the characters is wrong and they are 2D, then that trumps their perspective. I don't necessarily see how our flawed perspective is more valid than the scientific theory. The Earth only appears round to us, in actuality it is flat. I might be misunderstanding your argument though.

It wouldn't be the Earth that's flat by this reasoning though; if you accept measurements and the like (even if you don't, let's use this as an analogy) then we see our Earth to be round, and that won't change for anything. Wherever that round object exists, it's still round.
If you want to view it as information encoded onto the surface of a black hole, it is information describing a round Earth. And as information is not lost here, that information remains the same. One of the lines of that information would be 'round,' before it ever gets encoded into the singularity, and if information is not lost then that still ought to be there.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 03:50:39 PM

The Hawking radiation leaving the surface of the black hole has a chance of learning the information as it radiates away. This is one example of how the information of projected, or enacted.

It might just be my lack of knowledge of the theory, but I don't see how that could result in sentient beings.

That's a whole other topic of discussion, but the theory itself doesn't present any severe hindrances to our current understanding. I'm not entirely sure either, to be honest, but I don't see how it couldn't.

The radiation merely creates the illusion. All of the information changing form (me making a cup of coffee, for example) happens on the surface, and is projected out by the radiation.

I'm a little confused by your photon-TV analogy.

If you want to view it as information encoded onto the surface of a black hole, it is information describing a round Earth.

This is true only from our perspective, as far as the information is concerned, it is encoding a flat Earth on a surface. It is the projection of that information that creates the illusion it is round. The illusion isn't encoded in, it is an emergent property of the nature of the surface of the universe under this theory. So why is our subjective perception of an illusion reality?

It wouldn't be the Earth that's flat by this reasoning though; if you accept measurements and the like (even if you don't, let's use this as an analogy) then we see our Earth to be round, and that won't change for anything. Wherever that round object exists, it's still round. 

"...we see our Earth to be round..."
Yes, we see it that way, but we also see Newtonian gravity works on a small scale. We also know that Newtonian gravity isn't 'real'. That's the way I see it, anyway.

Quote from: Jane on February 09, 2018, 05:49:44 PM

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 03:50:39 PM

The Hawking radiation leaving the surface of the black hole has a chance of learning the information as it radiates away. This is one example of how the information of projected, or enacted.

It might just be my lack of knowledge of the theory, but I don't see how that could result in sentient beings.

That's a whole other topic of discussion, but the theory itself doesn't present any severe hindrances to our current understanding. I'm not entirely sure either, to be honest, but I don't see how it couldn't.

The radiation merely creates the illusion. All of the information changing form (me making a cup of coffee, for example) happens on the surface, and is projected out by the radiation.

I'm a little confused by your photon-TV analogy.

Quote from: Jane on February 09, 2018, 05:49:44 PM

If you want to view it as information encoded onto the surface of a black hole, it is information describing a round Earth.

This is true only from our perspective, as far as the information is concerned, it is encoding a flat Earth on a surface. It is the projection of that information that creates the illusion it is round. The illusion isn't encoded in, it is an emergent property of the nature of the surface of the universe under this theory. So why is our subjective perception of an illusion reality?

Quote from: Jane on February 09, 2018, 05:49:44 PM

It wouldn't be the Earth that's flat by this reasoning though; if you accept measurements and the like (even if you don't, let's use this as an analogy) then we see our Earth to be round, and that won't change for anything. Wherever that round object exists, it's still round. 

"...we see our Earth to be round..."
Yes, we see it that way, but we also see Newtonian gravity works on a small scale. We also know that Newtonian gravity isn't 'real'. That's the way I see it, anyway.

Tied up in the knots of ignorance!

Quote from: Jane on February 09, 2018, 05:49:44 PM

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 03:50:39 PM

The Hawking radiation leaving the surface of the black hole has a chance of learning the information as it radiates away. This is one example of how the information of projected, or enacted.

It might just be my lack of knowledge of the theory, but I don't see how that could result in sentient beings.

That's a whole other topic of discussion, but the theory itself doesn't present any severe hindrances to our current understanding. I'm not entirely sure either, to be honest, but I don't see how it couldn't.

The radiation merely creates the illusion. All of the information changing form (me making a cup of coffee, for example) happens on the surface, and is projected out by the radiation.

I'm a little confused by your photon-TV analogy.

Quote from: Jane on February 09, 2018, 05:49:44 PM

If you want to view it as information encoded onto the surface of a black hole, it is information describing a round Earth.

This is true only from our perspective, as far as the information is concerned, it is encoding a flat Earth on a surface. It is the projection of that information that creates the illusion it is round. The illusion isn't encoded in, it is an emergent property of the nature of the surface of the universe under this theory. So why is our subjective perception of an illusion reality?

Quote from: Jane on February 09, 2018, 05:49:44 PM

It wouldn't be the Earth that's flat by this reasoning though; if you accept measurements and the like (even if you don't, let's use this as an analogy) then we see our Earth to be round, and that won't change for anything. Wherever that round object exists, it's still round. 

"...we see our Earth to be round..."
Yes, we see it that way, but we also see Newtonian gravity works on a small scale. We also know that Newtonian gravity isn't 'real'. That's the way I see it, anyway.

One of the problems with what you are proposing is that the whole idea of a holographic universe and it’s implications remain totally unverified. Recent experiments indeed have cast doubt on the whole idea. While it remains a possibility, I have neither the experience or knowledge, just like yourself, to base my opinions on anything other than what I read. You fall down, like many FEers, by latching on to a concept without really understanding what it actually means then inferring various things that you imagine will bolster your beliefs.
No where in string theory or the holographic universe does it state that the earth, as we both know it and perceive it is flat. Go look at some images of the earth taken from space, or does your cherry picking mentality reject this on the grounds of inconvenience?
Taking quotes at random and watching a few videos on YouTube does not, sadly make one an expert. Like most people we have to base our opinions of all kinds of disciplines on work of the experts. Our world has become very specialised and complex. That’s why most research today is carried out by interdisciplinary teams, with the members, to a large extent, only fully understanding their own area of expertise..    .......then you come along and make claims using two very complex theories of physics both heavy in mathematics that are both still unproven imagining you have some deep understanding! String theory while it has been around for quite some time has not yet become  a proven mainstream theory. Go look it up!
All of what you say is no more than fancifull spin stuck on to theories you know little or nothing of substance about, possibly to try and make yourself look clever.

Quote from: Tessa Yuri on February 09, 2018, 03:50:39 PM

The Hawking radiation leaving the surface of the black hole has a chance of learning the information as it radiates away. This is one example of how the information of projected, or enacted.

It might just be my lack of knowledge of the theory, but I don't see how that could result in sentient beings. You'd need the radiation to projected in a specific order, for one, and to use the recording analogy again: emitting the photons to project an image of a movie, say, doesn't make the world real.

Quote

I can see your point, but to my mind since the perspective of the characters is wrong and they are 2D, then that trumps their perspective. I don't necessarily see how our flawed perspective is more valid than the scientific theory. The Earth only appears round to us, in actuality it is flat. I might be misunderstanding your argument though.

It wouldn't be the Earth that's flat by this reasoning though; if you accept measurements and the like (even if you don't, let's use this as an analogy) then we see our Earth to be round, and that won't change for anything. Wherever that round object exists, it's still round.
If you want to view it as information encoded onto the surface of a black hole, it is information describing a round Earth. And as information is not lost here, that information remains the same. One of the lines of that information would be 'round,' before it ever gets encoded into the singularity, and if information is not lost then that still ought to be there.

Let’s not enter the world of delusion. If TY was to attend a meeting where string theory or black hole thermodynamics were the subjects on the agenda do you think for one moment she/he would have the knowledge or understanding to pass any valid comment on any measurements that were discussed I doubt she would understand one word that was said other than...Hello please sit down... ? I think the same would apply to everyone on this forum. Let’s not run away into the world of fantasy and imagine we know know about either string theory or black hole thermodynamics.....coming out with terms like Hawking radiation does not an expert make, go ask Stephen if you don’t believe me or even John who proved Stephen wrong on the nature of the radiation that bears his name.

One of the problems with what you are proposing is that the whole idea of a holographic universe and it’s implications remain totally unverified. Recent experiments indeed have cast doubt on the whole idea. While it remains a possibility, I have neither the experience or knowledge, just like yourself, to base my opinions on anything other than what I read. You fall down, like many FEers, by latching on to a concept without really understanding what it actually means then inferring various things that you imagine will bolster your beliefs.

I never said the theory was true or valid. The entire point of romanticism is that it is a theory, but a theory no less valid than any other.

No where in string theory or the holographic universe does it state that the earth, as we both know it and perceive it is flat.

Correct. Nowhere in string theory or the holographic universe does it state that the Earth, both as we (subjective interpreters living inside the holographic universe) know it and percieve it. But why would our subjective perception be reality?

Taking quotes at random and watching a few videos on YouTube does not, sadly make one an expert. Like most people we have to base our opinions of all kinds of disciplines on work of the experts. Our world has become very specialised and complex. That’s why most research today is carried out by interdisciplinary teams, with the members, to a large extent, only fully understanding their own area of expertise.

I never claimed to be an expert. I just claim to know more about it than you.

This is true only from our perspective, as far as the information is concerned, it is encoding a flat Earth on a surface. It is the projection of that information that creates the illusion it is round. The illusion isn't encoded in, it is an emergent property of the nature of the surface of the universe under this theory. So why is our subjective perception of an illusion reality?

Probably going to focus on this. It's getting a little existential, but that's the interesting part.
The way I see this working, there are three key elements here. The information that's being encoded, the medium that projects that information, and our perceptions from within the information.
The medium is certainly flat, our perceptions we seem to be agreed are round. I don't think either of those are the important ones, though; certainly our perceptions can be misleading, and the nature of the underlying medium of our universe is basically too fundamental to say much about the contents of the universe itself. It'd be like saying a computer has no concept of 2 or a third just because it codes in 1s and 0s.
It's the information that describes our universe. And to use the process described in the OP, this whole set-up can be viewed as coming from a world being sucked into a black hole, and being encoded onto its surface, so if that nature of the world is round, you're saying that the world is a globe by every relevant factor of its information. If we only pay attention to the nature of the Earth, it's round.

The source of the information, if the information is constant, by definition has no effect on the contents of that information. So if the information can derive from encoding a round Earth, you seem stick with RET.

It's a round Earth in a flat universe, certainly, but it seems hard to really call this a flat Earth.

If we only pay attention to the nature of the Earth, it's round.

I can see what you're saying, and I agree in terms of being sucked into a black hole, but we can't really say with certainty that with the holographic principle the Earth is encoded as 'round' on the surface of the universe. It could be an emergent property of the medium and the perception.

but we can't really say with certainty that with the holographic principle the Earth is encoded as 'round' on the surface of the universe. It could be an emergent property of the medium and the perception.

How would that function?
If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that we don't perceive the world accurately due to its and our nature as encoded information (the information reading as round to our flawed perceptions when in fact it says flat). Which, fair enough, though you do get close to making all science impossible if you want to head in that direction, but is there any theoretical underpinning to that?
Your theory has, so far, been based on decently interesting and understood concepts, but if you switch to relying on plain unreliable perceptions with no clear cause it's scientifically equivalent to just adopting a solipsistic perspective and justifying FET that way. Either could theoretically work, but why do you need to go via the holographic principle to rely on that conclusion?

I may be misunderstanding what you mean when you talk about the information not being described as 'round,' but from everything you've said the only way we could ever conceivably determine that is by our own perceptions from within that information.

I may be misunderstanding what you mean when you talk about the information not being described as 'round,' but from everything you've said the only way we could ever conceivably determine that is by our own perceptions from within that information.

Oh, I see the confusion. I'm saying it may not be coded as round, because as you say there's no way to determine that. Since there's no way to determine it, romanticism takes over.

I should have been clearer; I'm simply saying there's no way to know or prove that the information encodes 'round'.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 10, 2018, 01:40:39 AM

One of the problems with what you are proposing is that the whole idea of a holographic universe and it’s implications remain totally unverified. Recent experiments indeed have cast doubt on the whole idea. While it remains a possibility, I have neither the experience or knowledge, just like yourself, to base my opinions on anything other than what I read. You fall down, like many FEers, by latching on to a concept without really understanding what it actually means then inferring various things that you imagine will bolster your beliefs.

I never said the theory was true or valid. The entire point of romanticism is that it is a theory, but a theory no less valid than any other.

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 10, 2018, 01:40:39 AM

No where in string theory or the holographic universe does it state that the earth, as we both know it and perceive it is flat.

Correct. Nowhere in string theory or the holographic universe does it state that the Earth, both as we (subjective interpreters living inside the holographic universe) know it and percieve it. But why would our subjective perception be reality?

Quote from: Lonegranger on February 10, 2018, 01:40:39 AM

Taking quotes at random and watching a few videos on YouTube does not, sadly make one an expert. Like most people we have to base our opinions of all kinds of disciplines on work of the experts. Our world has become very specialised and complex. That’s why most research today is carried out by interdisciplinary teams, with the members, to a large extent, only fully understanding their own area of expertise.

I never claimed to be an expert. I just claim to know more about it than you.

Now you really are dreaming!

It could be an emergent property of the medium and the perception.

Which is an option I was suggesting before which makes Earth distinct from the information which is encoded on the surface.

But either way, you still end up with a round Earth.
You either have a round Earth encoded on a surface as a round Earth, or you have a round Earth as an emergent property of the information that is encoded.

Just like if you take a picture of an object, it doesn't make the object itself 2D.
Just like if you take a 3D model of an object as lines of code which makes no sense to discuss in any form of spatial dimensions, it doesn't make the object itself dimensionless.
The information encoding the object, and the object itself are 2 different things.