|
The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-15 18:21:15 |
|
A few weeks ago, a friend of mine tried to explain a new theory to me. He couldn't quite get the idea out, so he directed me to this article. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?full=true That said, I read it and thought about it for a while. After that, I cried a little on the inside when I realized that the theory could actually work. I cheered up a bit when I realized that this could nullify string theory (Which never ceases to frustrate me. I liked string theory before I realized that pysicists and mathematicians were actually adding new dimensions whenever they couldn't make a particular equation work. That's cheating in my book.). In addition, from what I've heard, the theory is supported by the problems with energy resolution at the atomic level, but I can't see how the two are related. Unless, of course, it's the actual cause of the 'graininess'. That actually would make sense. So, if anyone wants to discuss the theory in general or help me figure out how the two are related, let me know.  |
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-15 19:41:09 (edited 2009-03-15 20:14:26)
|
|
Here are 2 good books that touch on the Holographic Principle: The Black Hole War by Leonard Susskind Three Roads to Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin The first addresses the origin of HP as a solution to certain problems in the study of black holes. The second presents HP as one piece in the puzzle of quantum gravity. Good for much needed perspective. I share your frustration with super-string conjecture -- remember, it's not a theory until it's falsifiable. I don't know about "problems with energy resolution at the atomic level". Can you be more specific? The newscientist.com article you posted contains at least one very dubious claim: "Theorists have since shown that microscopic quantum ripples at the event horizon can encode the information inside the black hole, so there is no mysterious information loss as the black hole evaporates."This seems to be laymen for the assertion that Hawking radiation carries away the black hole's information through quantum corrections to it's otherwise random nature. The author of the article fails to convey the controversy here. There are a myriad of ideas as to what happens to information after it passes the event horizon, many of them can't yet be ruled out. No surprise, after all, we don't even have a testable quantum theory of gravity yet! 
|
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-15 20:53:16 (edited 2009-03-15 20:57:30)
|
|
Quite true. I apologize for the terminology, it's just that I'm used to referring to it as string theory. Energy resolution at the subatomic (another faux pas on my part) level refers to the energy within an atom. The law of consevation of energy states that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but can be transferred and converted from one form to another. This theory should be long outdated by now, as there are so many obvious exceptions (if you exclude Noether's theorem), i.e. gravity (if it is indeed what I think it is). However, in this context, it calls the forces that hold the atom together and the composition of subatomic particles into question. To maintain atomic structure and function (like electron orbit) should require an energy output. With the aforementioned "Law" should require the system to make an intake of energy, scientists (If I could put a name to the theory, I would. I had the same trouble when looking into the successful transmutation by "a team of IBM scientists". It always amazes me that newspeople seem to forget the names of intelligent people, but they can name Heath Ledger's drug dealer before you bother to ask.) seem to have found evidence of a constant output of energy, but no adequate intake. The most logical explanation for this is that the atom actually does generate energy. However, if you accept the holographic principle, the energy could already exist, but outside of the dimensions that we perceive. I still have yet to get a good grip on the principle of "information" being lost, but I'm working on it. |
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-15 23:29:40 |
|
Whoa there. The conservation of energy is the opposite of an out-dated theory. It is a governing principal at the foundation of physics. In other words, there's no such thing as an empirical demonstration of the not-conservation of energy. Nothing could ever "look" like a violation, short of a perpetual motion machine, which is an internally inconsistent fantasy. The gravitational force mediates change of potential into kinetic energy, no exception to conservation of energy there. Electrons do not actually "orbit" the nuclei of atoms in a classical sense. In any case, if you consider the two body solution for a stable orbit, you notice that the system doesn't require include energy input or output. Stable atoms don't output energy all on their own! What makes you think they would? Atoms that give off light have been excited to a higher-than-ground state. Atoms that exhibit radioactive decay loose part of their mass-energy as heat and alpha particles, etc. I'm worried you believe in the strong Holographic Principle which is likens the surface area of a region of space to a screen through which the image is projected. I can see how you might then conclude that energy need only be conserved in two but not necessarily all three dimensions. Given that energy is always conserved in every experiment ever, it seems a wholly unlikely.
|
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-16 13:43:19 (edited 2009-03-16 13:47:03)
|
|
Wait. You said yourself that we have no testable quantum theory of gravity yet, so isn't it a bit early to be talking about gravitational energy in absolute terms? Unless, of course, "gravitational energy" is only a concept of a cause for a phenomenon, like centrifugal force. About the electron orbit: really? Any recommended literature on that? And what do you mean by non-traditional orbit? I understand the irregular orbit shapes like f and d orbitals, but is there something else I'm not familiar with? (On that note, I have been wondering how atoms could "share" electrons that are in motion.) Well, we're typically taught that the particles within an atom, as well as the atom itself, are always in motion (which also makes me wonder what particles would be called if we could achieve absolute zero). Motion supposedly requires an initial energy input. Constant motion traditionally requires constant input, correct? Therefore, the atom, which is in constant (perpetual) motion, should be getting a constant input, unless a perfect interchange between kinetic and potential energy is maintained, which seems unlikely. I appreciate the help. Like I said, my only source so far is the article, which does give the idea that the "edge" of the universe is a projection medium. |
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-16 17:54:42 (edited 2009-03-16 18:05:46)
|
|
There is no such thing as "gravitational energy". There is the force of gravity (force is NOT energy), and potential energy of objects. The work that is done when an object falls is due to the gravitational force, but is the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy. This has been an established way of looking at the phenomenon since Newton. I didn't say non-traditional, I said non-classical which is a technical term that means, in this case, not obeying Newton's laws of motion. I would go so far as to say that electrons do NOT orbit the nucleus of atoms. Instead, I might say electrons of an atom exist as a wave function until they are measured as a point particle. To learn about the quantum mechanical behavior of electrons in the atom, you may read about electron configuration here. You might also be interested in reading about the history of atomic theory of the electron. In a quantum mechanical system, it is not true that motion requires an input of energy. There is a zero-point energy that arises from the laws of quantum mechanics alone. I think the most important consideration you've missed is that energy is a relative property of a system, just as position or time. A perfect interchange between kinetic and potential energy is EXACTLY what you get when you drop a book to the floor! Why do you see this as unlikely? Oh, and I'm happy to help! It's fun.
|
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-16 19:51:57 (edited 2009-03-16 19:53:48)
|
|
Thanks! Okay, no gravitational energy. I was already thinking of gravity, anyway, but wikipedia backed me up. Check this out and see what you think. Wikipedia: Law of Conservation of Energy That said, once you think about it, I suppose they could exist as wave functions. This reminds me of something else (you might be able to help me remember what this is called), an old scientist saying that while we cannot directly observe the electron, we can calculate where it will be at a given time (paraphrasing). And on the subject of the links: The first one was very helpful, and the second one taught me something surprising: electrons have no substructure? (also, they can be diffracted "like" light? Aren't electrons effectively light in a simpler, more stable form? Semantics, I know....) I was thinking about vacuums while I was writing the last entry. In a vacuum, with no interference, a moving object would continue moving without slowing or needing additional energy. Our most common interference types are wind resistance and friction, but the space between atoms contains... Well, I think it's nothing, which means that those forces are irrelevant. So what about gravity? Any effect on particle motion? Well, I was factoring in for kinetic energy being converted to potential energy as the particles encountered any possible energy loss. Since the energy in a system isn't lost, I was (in your terms) thinking that to stay in motion indefinitely, your book, rather than hitting the floor, would stay at a fixed height and effectively orbit Earth in a vacuum state, thus keeping both the potential and kinetic energy constant, rather than all of the energy becoming one or the other. Not really something you see every day here on Earth, so it's a bit harder for me to adjust my thinking. Now, if I accept that there is no energy loss, the situation makes perfect sense. Though, like I said before, I'm still wondering about how gravity affects the motion of particles. |
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-17 08:16:09 (edited 2009-03-17 08:22:17)
|
|
... we cannot directly observe the electron, we can calculate where it will be at a given time ... In quantum mechanics, we use the square of the wave function to predict the likelihood of finding a particle in space. This applies to any object; electron, photon, or even an atomic nucleus. Since physics at quantum scales is inherently statistical in nature, we don't say where a particle is in space, but rather where it is likely to be. Also, you can observe the particle-wave duality of any object, and even atomic nuclei if you setup your experiment just right! Electrons are NOT light in a simpler, more stable form. Electrons are Fermions (particles with half integer spin), while photons are Bosons (particles with integer spin). Bosons are force carrying particles, while Fermions are the components of matter. Totally different. So what about gravity? Any effect on particle motion? Yes, it clumps matter together to form stars. I'm still wondering about how gravity affects the motion of particles. In physics, forces are what affect the motion of particles. For non-relativistic energies, you can calculate the force of gravity using Newton's law of universal gravitation.
|
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-17 10:33:12 |
|
The way it was explained to me, photons were excited masses of electrons. Then again, I was also taught that Columbus discovered America. Touché. I get that, but I meant gravity affecting the positions of things like electrons relative to the nuclear body. Put simply, would gravity pull electrons down and away from the nucleus of an atom? |
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-17 10:51:09 |
|
Whoever explained that to you was pulling your leg, lol. ... would gravity pull electrons down and away from the nucleus of an atom? The gravitational force is infinitesimally weak compared to the electromagnetic force, which holds electrons together with the nucleus in atoms. In other words, the presence of gravitational fields doesn't usually effect chemistry. Not true under extreme circumstances, such as in the Sun, where the force of gravity causes temperatures high enough for fusion to occur. Besides, when gravity pulls on the electron, it also pulls on the nucleus. Think of a marble and a box falling from the roof of a building, they hit the ground at the same time wether the marble is inside the box or not. Same is true for the electron and the nucleus of an atom falling in a gravitational field, they will move together.
|
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-17 13:34:20 |
|
Okay. I was still thinking in terms of orbit, thinking that the orbit would be slowed as the particles moved away from the source of gravity. And now that I think more on it, the acceleration would be equalized anyway. |
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by angel_of_stone
on 2009-03-17 16:45:55
|
|
But Gendou, what about the repulsive electromagnetic forces within an atom? Protons don't like being mashed together in the middle of an atom. What keeps an atoms from exploding due to all those like charged particles confined to such a small space?
"But as Deepak Chopra taught us, quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason." -Prof. Hubert J. Farnsworth
"I don't have any opinions anymore. All I know is that no one is better than anyone else, and everyone is the best at everything." -Seymour Skinner "...if I got trapped by an evil wizard then I did enough cool s**t in my life to be content with it ending. " -Wolf |
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-17 20:01:25 |
|
Yes, the protons in atoms heavier than Hydrogen do repel each other with electric repulsion. It is the strong nuclear force that holds them together in the nucleus.
|
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-17 20:07:07 |
|
Oui, that's the thing. Alright, Gendou-sama, thanks for the discussion and perspective! |
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-17 21:06:21 (edited 2009-03-17 21:06:38)
|
|
My pleasure. Since we're off topic already, what other physics topics peak your curiosity?
|
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-18 14:36:39 |
|
Gravity (in general), quarks, reasons Pluto's not a planet anymore, anything to do with hydrodynamics, and questions like "Since molecules are always supposed to be in motion, what happens when we cool it to absolute zero and it has no energy?" |
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-20 04:19:48 (edited 2009-03-20 04:20:33)
|
|
To learn about Pluto not being classified as a planet anymore, check out this book. Since molecules are always supposed to be in motion, what happens when we cool it to absolute zero and it has no energy? It does too have energy, the zero-point energy. It's just you can't suck the zero-point energy out of a system, because the system is in it's ground state. Sort of like how a book stops falling when it hits the floor. It still has potential energy, being far away from the center of the Earth; still somewhere to fall. But it's trapped above ground by the floor. There's a sort of floor to the temperature of a quantum mechanical system. Pardon my weak analogy, but I hope that's helpful.
|
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-20 13:12:04 |
|
So there can never be a true absolute zero as long as the atom is not subject to a gravity-less environment? Anyway, what would we call it if the individual atom stops moving? |
|
Re: The Holographic Principle
Link |
by
on 2009-03-22 04:06:25 (edited 2009-03-22 04:13:06)
|
|
No, absolute zero is not a thing that can be achieved in a laboratory. It's beyond practical limits. You can't measure an atom and find that it has stopped moving. There is always a delta-x when you measure position, and it will always be inverse correlated with some momentum delta-p. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle sees to that.
|