The Holographic Principle — how to think of it without going crazy
LINK to “How Physics Surrendered To Hippies”
LINK to “Information Theory + Quantum Theory + Holographic Theory”
eventually integrate with that other page ???
CONSIDER THE HOLOGRAPHIC IDEA ALONG WITH THE COMPARISON OF “SUPERSYMMETRY” AND “UNIFICATION”
CONSIDER THE HOLOGRAPHIC IDEA ALONG WITH THE COMPARISON OF “ARCHETYPAL GEOMETRY SELF-SIMILARITY” AND “SYMMETRY OF CALCULABLE EQUATIONS”
LINK to “SuperSymmetry vs Unification”
LINK to “Archetypal Geometrical SuperSymmetry vs SuperSymmetry of Numerically Designated Factors in Physical Equations”
Does this idea make any sense at all?
How are people supposed to contemplate the reality of such an idea without turning science inside out?
How are people supposed to conceive of this idea without having fantasy devour the entirety of physics?
What does the spherical surface of a black hole have to do with the surface of the entire cosmos anyway?
How could you generalize this informational idea to all surfaces?
Why do all statements made regarding this theory seem to be a self-parody of previous physics and its assumptions? Why does this theory sound like physics mocking itself? Are we supposed to laugh?
Is this theory a lazy or expedient way of accepting that all possible geometries projected onto all possible surfaces are real somewhere?
Wasn’t physics a geometrical projection or visualization of space-time forms all along? Did we cross over from numerical calculation to geometrization so thoroughly that respectable professors are now willing to say with a straight face, “The physical universe is a temporary visual projection of light from a lower dimension which is more constant and reliably physical? Where can we expect holographic string theory to intersect with biology and psycho-biology / biophysics?
embed escher disk – along with the holographic idea of the cylinder with infinite sides ….
COLLECT ALL QUOTES BY BRIAN GREENE, surface of sphere, surface of outer edge of the universe, visible or actual? both may be relative, which is relevant here? is the surface of the “visible universe” defined as all surfaces inner and outer? how abstract is this theory? how broad is its reach? how many ways are there to use it, or apply it meaningfully?
Is a rainbow a meaningful intersection of quantum interactions and macroscopic relativistic interactions, like a black hole is?
a superposition of observers should be required to describe a rainbow in full scope. I don’t think physics has attempted to describe a rainbow’s physical existence fully. It would require the description of three fields. A field of light, a field of water, and a field of possible observers.
Is holographic theory in any way related to the description of light inside a sphere of water?
Collect Raphael Buosso and Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind and other physicists’ direct quotes on this theory … its relation to string theory etc
in what sense is it rooted in string theory’s complexity? in what sense is it rooted in string theory’s simplicity?
How is the assumption of physical reality-realism and unreality-unrealism to be viewed in proper perspective of this theory?
Is the super small world of strings more constant and reliable than the macro-cosmos on the galactic level, or the middle cosmos of life?
Which is more “holographic?” The ultra small, sub-sub-atomic? Or the world of the human mind and its creations? Or all levels of the world which we can only model with geometric surfaces?
If all the possible geometries conceivable by the human mind become unified with all possible physical flows of the quantum and macro-world, which is then more “real?”
What Is the Holographic Principle? – World Science Festival