Register to reply 
The relation between entropy and probability at quantum levelu 
Share this thread: 
#55
Jun1511, 09:15 AM

P: 2

does quantum entaglement create all field that exist!!!! as everything were bound together before big bang??



#56
Jun1511, 10:14 AM

Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 23,228

I started a separate thread for Sanoy's question:
http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=507150 


#57
Jun1611, 09:39 PM

P: 83

I'm currently reading that paper and it is an impressive result that they are able to show how a massless scalar field in EAdS space is dual to massive scalars in dS space. But see that also brings up another concern I have, the scalar field phi that we have been discussing in various papers so far, those seem to be massless, I think. Now how'd things change if that scalar was to gain mass? If it doesn't change anything that we are already most of the way there to the mapping. We already have a well defined mapping from bulk to boundary in AdS in terms of a scalar field and now if there exists an uplift mechanism to dS then the mapping in AdS should hold as well. That last part, I need a bit of time to properly define it.



#58
Jun1811, 01:50 AM

P: 755

I'm not sure which paper you're reading, and maybe I shouldn't distract you from this topic, but all of that is just about relating properties of a field in an AdS bulk to properties of a field in a dS bulk. The formulas for one field will be similar to formulas for the other field, except for a few alterations corresponding to the change from a negatively curved space to a positively curved space.
But all that is still just preliminary. The real AdS/CFT correspondence involves what I was talking about in #47: the reexpression of bulk fields near the boundary, in terms of a completely different set of fields on the boundary. The fields of the boundary theory  call them A, B, C...  and combinations of them  dA/dx . B^2, or whatever  transform in a certain way under conformal transformations (rescalings, mostly) of the boundary space. When you do this coordinate transformation on the boundary, the correlation functions, etc, have to be multipled by a quantity of the form z^n, where z expresses the magnitude of the rescaling. For a given combination of boundary fields, the exponent n is called the "conformal dimension" of that combination. You can estimate n just from counting "tensor indices" (whether A, B are scalar, vector, how many space derivatives there are, etc), but then there's an extra "anomalous" contribution that comes from quantum mechanics. The full "anomalous conformal dimension" of a combination of field operators from the boundary theory then maps onto the mass of the corresponding field in the bulk. Also note, one field in the bulk corresponds to one combination of fields from the boundary. The capitalO operators which show up in these papers by David Lowe refer to unspecified combinations of fields from the unspecified boundary CFT (the "trace ABC" expressions I mentioned in comment #47). This is the algebraic complexity which is at the heart of AdS/CFT (or at least, it was the first really difficult aspect of the correspondence to be investigated and confirmed, since it's quite hard to calculate these anomalous dimensions). It starts out as an algebraic relation between combinations of boundary field operators, and bulk fields near the boundary. Once you have that, it's a much simpler thing to extend the relation so it also applies to bulk fields away from the boundary  that just corresponds to higher energy scales on the boundary, or (same thing) to summing over increasingly large regions on the boundary, as in these papers by Lowe. But so far as I can see, noone has any real understanding of what happens to this algebraic relation when you go from AdS to dS. How could they, when they don't have any full examples of dS/CFT to work with, just guesses? We don't know if the AdS/CFT algebraic relation survives but gets changed, or if it is completely destroyed and a completely different one takes its place. So, this is a hard problem, even before you start trying to derive quantum mechanics itself from holography. :) 


#59
Jun1811, 05:12 AM

P: 343

I wonder what your getting at here? can you elaborate a little. I find it interesting that Bohm had a "holographic" interpretation of QM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implica..._to_David_Bohm These ideas come at least 14 years or so before the "holographic principle" for QG was first put forward! Of coarse its not clear whether the two ideas of holographic are directly related. But it would seem likely to me. 


#60
Jun1811, 01:27 PM

P: 83

thanks for the reply mitchell, in that last post I was referring to: An AdS/dS duality for a scalar particle. I do understand to some extent that reading that paper won't provide the full correspondence that we need, the ideas presented there seemed interesting though. But it is as you say, this problem is indeed very difficult and part of the reason is the lack of fully worked examples, in that case I think we may simply have to use indirect methods or guesses :) first of which is the wick rotation, this paper explores some of that. Now I found another very interesting indirect method that is a little more than halfway developed:
Conformal anomaly from dS/CFT correspondence: 


#61
Jun2011, 03:25 AM

P: 755

I haven't decoded all of that yet. But it's interesting to see that the original reference on this subject (computing the conformal anomaly using holographic RG flow) employs the HamiltonJacobi equations, because they also offer a path to the Bohmian approach to quantum mechanics. You may have seen news stories recently about the reconstruction of definite trajectories for photons in a doubleslit experiment, using "weakvalued measurements"; those were "Bohmian trajectories". So, here we're close to something very basic about how quantum mechanics works.



#62
Jun2611, 09:59 PM

P: 83

Just an update, I've been working on a related problem in the meantime however, today two very interesting papers came up, I am not sure if anyone mentioned those already or not.
1. dS/CFT Duality on the Brane with a Topological Twist: A C Petkou, G Siopsis (2001) 2. dS/CFT Correspondence in Two Dimensions: Scott Ness, George Siopsis (2002) 


#63
Jun3011, 03:48 AM

P: 755

I finally got to see one of the talks on twistorial holography by the other Verlinde brother, Herman, mentioned in comment #45. It was technically fascinating and connected to many other topics discussed on this forum in the past, like conformal gravity and how the twistor string works.
But the sense in which it's a holographic construction eludes me. Holography is mentioned in the first ten minutes, and then again in the very last minute. There are mappings, q and q_T (q transpose, the inverse of q), which are not bulktoboundary mappings but bulkto"screen" mappings, where a screen is a surface in the bulk of one less dimension. There is a remark at 34 minutes that spacetime points become the lowest Landau level of something in one extra dimension. At 45 minutes the matrices q and q_T show up again, as noncommutative spacetime coordinates for strings stretching between a stack of N D4branes and a cloud of k D0branes. Then all this gets uplifted to a sixdimensional space of the form S^4 x S^2  the D4brane become spacefilling D6branes and the D0branes become D2branes wrapping the S^2  and this sixdimensional space happens to be twistor space!  4dimensional space with an extra "sphere" at each point, corresponding to directions in 3dimensional space. Again, the strings between these branes implement a version of twistor string theory, with one part being equivalent to the selfdual part of N=4 YangMills, and another part giving you the rest of N=4 YangMills coupled to conformal supergravity. Verlinde (along with Heckman) has a "fuzzy twistor" construction which acts as a regulator for this theory (i.e. it eliminates divergences due to shortdistance interactions, because the classical continuum picture no longer applies at very short distances), and he says it's holographic too  but that's the part I don't understand  at the end he says there's a projection onto the "twistor line", but I thought that was equivalent to one of the "S^2"s, so if he's talking about the reduction from 6d perspective to 4d perspective, it just seems like KaluzaKlein  approximating in a way that neglects the compact extra dimensions  and not the dramatic holographic elimination of one large dimension. So I don't get it, but it's extremely interesting, and will hopefully make more sense to me in the near future. 


#64
Jun3011, 01:38 PM

P: 83

Thanks for the link to the talk, I was looking around for the talk on Simulating the universe as a quantum computer when i found the talks from the Holographic Cosmology 2.0. There was some talk on the Denef paper as well. Anyways the idea of using a screen is very interesting, it reminds me of the Grassimian representation that we talked about before, the fact that you would use a third theory that is more fundamental. You make the bulk dual to the screen and then the screen to the boundary, so the paper I mentioned before: dS/CFT Correspondence in Two Dimensions: Scott Ness, George Siopsis (2002) might actually work. I'll comment again with questions and such as I watch the talk.
update: There is also a talk on uplifting, titled: Uplifting AdS/CFT to Cosmology 


#65
Jul1311, 08:57 AM

P: 172

I ressurrect this thread.
Could you outline your main thoughts in layman terms? What is it you are thinking is going on in the horizon that gives us the illusion of randomness and nonlocality? 


#66
Jul1311, 11:16 AM

P: 83

Fyzix: this thread isn't dead yet, we are simply waiting, at Strings 2011, Herman et. al announced that they had worked out a complete example of dS/CFT and the paper will be out later this month. Once that's in, then we can do a lot more instead of making guesses as to what really happens because of the lack of an example.



Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Relation between entropy, order and structures  General Physics  7  
Relation between occupation probability and first passage probability  Classical Physics  4  
Relation between occupation probability and first passage probability  Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics  2  
Quantum probability versus entropy  Quantum Physics  7  
Relation between symmetry and entropy  General Physics  0 