Is Holographic Principle a confirmed theory ?

[czes]

Gerard 't Hooft proposes the dimensional reduction, Leonard Suskind uses the Holographic Principle in String Theory, Juan Maldacena wrotes AdS/CFT correspondence.
There are hundreds articles in 2010 since Erik Verlinde wrote its "Origin of the gravity".
Many astronomical phenomenons like Dark Energy, Dark Matter effect, space inflation, space recession, accelerating expansion of the Universe are simpler explained by Holographic Principle.

Is the Holographic Principle a confirmed Mainstream Theory ?
or
Is it Beyond the Standart Model still ?

 

[Chronos]

Speculative. It presumes spacetime is granular and does not yet have good observational support.

 

[czes]

Is there an experiment which could falsify Holographic Principle ?
What could suggest it is wrong ?
Is it possible at all ?

 

[czes]

Speculative. It presumes spacetime is granular and does not yet have good observational support.

May be it is not possible to distinguish between the classic physics and Holographic Universe ?

 

[atyy]

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v2/102
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4266

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.5542

 

[Fra]

Another problem IMO is to find a more clear statement of the principle. In particular what this principle means, when space is emergent, and when there is no objective measure of "amount of information".

It's somehow plausible that the inferrable information about something, is somehow constrained by the size of the communication channel between this something and the observer making the inference.

So until there is a more precise definition of "amount of information" and the "communication channel" or "boundary of a region" the principle itlsef can be changed just by changing these definitions.

But the exact relation, the quantization of the channel/surface and the proportinality constant, probably needs details understanding information and space. So I see it more as an interesting but fuzzy constructing principle.

/Fredrik

 

[czes]

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v2/102
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.4266

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.5542

Thank you Atyy for the links. I collect such the articles so I print it for my study of the subject. There are some useful observations of the Black Holes.

 

[czes]

Another problem IMO is to find a more clear statement of the principle. In particular what this principle means, when space is emergent, and when there is no objective measure of "amount of information".
/Fredrik

It is a serious problem how to count the amount of the information. On one side we have the amount of the bits on the surface of the Event Horizon = A/4 Lp^2 (Area/4 Plack length^2). On the other side there is a statistical number due to Shannon (Boltzmann) entropy NkT (amount of the particles time Boltzmann constant and temperature).

I try to replace the statistical calculation of the entropy by the amount of the oscillations due to Compton wavelength and distances between particles.
I assume each oscillation of the charged massive particle is caused by an absorption and emission of the quantum state (quantum event, virtual particle-antiparticle). Each quantum event does carry an information of the Planck length contraction and Planck time dilation.

We may wrote a trivial equation:
(lp / l x ) * (lp / l y ) = -a Fg / Fe
where:
lp * lp – Planck length squared = hG/c^3
l x , l y –Compton wave length of two interacting particles x,y l= h/mc
a – alfa=ke2 /hc = fine structure constant
Fg – Gravitational Newton's interaction Fg = Gm(x) m(y) /r2
Fe - Electrostatic Coulomb interaction Fe = ke2 /r2

If this is right we may easy calculate gravitational time dilation, Black Hole proportion, Holographic Principle relation.
http://www.hlawiczes1.webpark.pl/gravastar.html

Verlinde and other physicists use Compton wavelength when the particle approaches to the screen only. I use it to construct all the emergent space.
What do you think abot such a use of the Compton wavelength ?

 

[Fra]

It is a serious problem how to count the amount of the information.
...
What do you think abot such a use of the Compton wavelength ?

We must see different problems because your notes doesn't appear to address any of the issues I have in mind.

With the problem of how to count information, I refer to the context needed for representing and encoding the "counter". I mean that a given observer, can not encode and therefor not count infinite amounts of info in it's environment. This also imples a observer-based "cutoff", and may suggest that there is no objective counting at all.

(It's analogous to the issue of computability. I mean something can be "in principle" computable given an sufficiently good computer, but for something to be more properly computable we also need an actual computer that can do this calculation in finite time - or more precisely within the timeframe where the computation itself remains welldefined or meaningful - or else the whole idea of computation is just worthless and silly.)

About the problem of defining information, which this I mean: what DIFFERENCE does it make what information we have? We need a functional characterisaton of information in the sense that the state of information implies some inferences about the future. (ie the action)

/Fredrik

 

[czes]

Yes. I agree.
Even if the fundamental information would be a Compton wave we can't measure it.
May be I have to search if the caculations due to General Relativity and Quantum Information based on Compton wave are equivalent ?