Sunday, March 15, 2009

AWT and holographic theory

Holographic theory of Gerard 't Hooft is rather advanced (i.e. "freaky" from low dimensional perspective) idea, information and mass of every object is separated during it's fall bellow event horizon, so that information about all objects remains dispersed along surface of black hole and it can even determine the state of objects, who have fallen bellow event horizon (suppose they can survive such journey, at all). Because formally thinking theorists, who are preferring thinking in poorly conditioned complex logical clusters prefers highly dimensional and ad-hoced theories too, holographic principle was attempted to reconcile with / integrate into another accordingly formal theories, into topological string theory by Prof. Lenny Susskind in particular.

Holographic theory considers on background, we are living inside of such black hole, which is generally interesting idea, relevant even from AWT perspective. Furthemore it introduces an idea of tachyons (supposedly formed by gravitational waves), which are mediating the event horizon information projected projection inside, thus violating special relativity and string theory, which doesn't allow spreading of information in superluminal speed (again, AWT has no problem with such approach). As an additional connection can serve here the quantum delocalization proved by Aharamov-Bohm and Aspect's experiments and a holonomic character of information, treated inside of neural network by Pribram's theory, as proven by some experiments with cats, rats, flatworms or even slime molds (1,2), whereas AWT considers neural network as a quantum wave simulator of black hole interior, too. Furthermore, here's an apparent similarity between geometry of density fluctuations inside of dense particle system and the caustic patterns, projected through waves of water surface into bottom of water pool. Does it mean, volume fluctuations inside of dense droplet of fluid are formed by projection of by surface waves of droplet?

Apparently not, this is just a homology, but not analogy because of lost of information, which occurs here. Holographic model converges into Aether model, if we consider event horizon of black hole not being flat, but formed by thick layer of dense vacuum, so that the surface waves of this horizon will decompose into many spatial particles, whose common interactions are mediated by interference of gravitational waves ("tachyon condensation") in resemblance to Fatio-LeSage theory of gravity.

But holographic principle poses some conceptual problems, too. At first, it's causality arrow isn't quite clear for me (i.e. what serves as a hologram, holograph and holographic waves here exactly). In AWT the roles of all concepts can be interchanged mutually depending on observational perspective, driven by density gradient (by AWT every universe appears like system of one or more black holes, when being observed from inside of another black hole). In holographic theory it's not clear, where information exists separated from matter and where not. Should I serve as a projection matrix inside of another black holes, sitting inside of our Universe in relation to many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? Should we exist and to think about it in multiple-times? Why information about objects inside of black hole cannot be projected to black hole surface, instead? Can such way of thinking really simplify our understanding of reality, if we are forced to consider some deeper theory, capable to explain construction of holograph anyway? Which testable predictions it enables to derive for us? Etc...

Holographic principle simplifies multidimensional character of event horizon, which is formed by spatial density gradient, not by projection plane and which appears so only from distant outer perspective due the lensing effect and it doesn't consider presence of more holograms and holographs at the same moment. Furthemore it neglects lost of information, which occurs during fall into black hole, which renders it as a somewhat fringe theory, adhering to extrinsic perspective of reality observation. By AWT every dense object falling into dense black hole virtually dissolves into whole volume of dense environment, like lump of wet sand, when thrown into water, because the surface tension forces aren't capable to keep complex particles together.

Dissolving of objects into accretion radiation illustrates clearly, we shouldn't expect their image frozen bellow event horizon, as some interpretations of relativity considers. Instead of it, such object usually evaporates inside of our Universe a well before, then it can even reach the event horizon, like meteorite evaporates in Earth atmosphere. Therefore it has no meaning to consider some information about object after its fall into black hole, its projection into it the less, as such information cannot be recovered in its original form again due the probability reasons.

Recently, first experimental evidence of holographic principle was reported, when the noise of gravitational detectors was interpreted as a signal noise of giant holograph. But it's not quite clear for me, why just the noise was considered here. If we found a regular gravitational wave, it could be interpreted as a part of giant holograph as well. By this way, the finding of gravitational noise appears rather invariant to holographic theory for me and it can have a more robust and consistent explanation in context of AWT.


Anonymous said...

I think you watch too much Star trek

Zephir said...

AWT is rather narow-minded theory in compare to concept of multiverse, holographic and parallel universe, cosmic strings, warp-drives, worm holes and other "features" of modern science - don't you think?

Anonymous said...


Zephir said...

"Nonsense" = I didn't understood subject at all, 'cause I'm just a silly bunny..


"Nonsense" = I've found some contradicting claims and I'm prepared to demonstrated it by example?

Anonymous said...

Interesting stuff, im no scientist, but its nice to see some old theorys updated.
Zephir, I do agree that awt is narrow minded but it is still a theory, and untill we have evidence that says otherwise, then this theory is as valid as string or m-thoery etc.

Zephir said... valid as string or m-theory.. umm..this is the most depressing stuff, I've ever read here..;)

Anonymous said...

This is just a string of words with no sense.

Zephir said...

Can we prove about some claim, it has no sense?

If not, how did you recognized, it's a nonsense?
If yes, why I should bother about some subjective stance without arguments?

Hugh Pryor said...

I've read about these theories before so I know they are not just the ramblings of deranged mentalist. They are just quite difficult to understand unless you have a strong grasp of the maths behind them.
For instance a bit more explaining how the maths of the inside of a black hole is similar to the maths of a neural network would be useful.
To make these theories more accessible, analogies to how they compare to the real world would help them make sense. Instead of comparing matter falling into a black hole to a meteorite falling through the earth's atmosphere, it should be compared to a sugar cube dissolving in a cup of tea. Then we can ALL understand it.

Zephir said...

Formal math is something like programming language - it's not tool for understanding, but exact description of process logics.

To use math as a tool of understanding of physical theories is like analyzing the work of computer program at assembly language level.

In future mathematicians could use computer assisted functional programming and computer aided proofs of logical theorems - in such way their equations and derivation would become incomprehensible even for mathematicians.

The fall of sugar cube into tea is better example of accretion with respect to understanding of the surface forces equilibrium, which keeps the particles of matter together - whereas meteor fall into atmosphere is better for understanding, why matter would dissolve even before it touches of event horizon under contact with magnetosphere of black hole, which is behaving like sparse atmosphere of planet.

It means, each analogy has it's own predicative power - bot none of them can serve as an exact model of reality. Usually it's better to have more analogies prepared to explain various aspects of the single phenomena.

Anonymous said...

The ether theory is apsalutly correct except that it occures in layers.Increasing energy layers.Sort of like drops of wet sand.each layer different.On the overall it looks like particles or somthing.This ether theory makes physics prity simple.It explains gravity electromagnitism inertia and quantum.Everything is connected on some level.Newton knew it but couldent decide.Inertia measurment needed an external reference.And it had to be seperate from the system.But it wasn't.WE'll just have to wait for all of the bozon chasers to catch up with us.