Is the Holographic Principle the Key to Understanding Our Universe?

[Buzz Bloom]

I have just come across the following on the Astronomy Picture of the Day.

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170423.html​

Here is a quote that I would like to learn more about.

The Holographic Principle, yet unproven, states that there is a maximum amount of information content held by regions adjacent to any surface. Therefore, counter-intuitively, the information content inside a room depends not on the volume of the room but on the area of the bounding walls.​

I looked at the link for "Holographic Principle" and It gave a more formal definition of this concept, but not much about the reasoning behind it.

Can anyone explain this a bit further, or possibly post a link to a good discussion. The Wikipedia article was not particularly helpful to me, except for the following:

The holographic principle is a principle of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional https://www.physicsforums.com/javascript:void(0) to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon.​

In particular, can anyone estimate for me how likely this concept will turn out to be confirmed by observation?

 

[Grinkle]

the information content inside a room depends not on the volume of the room but on the area of the bounding walls.

As I understand it, the maximum information in bits that any volume can contain before the particles inside that volume become a singularity is the number of plank areas on the sphere of the event horizon that would form for a singularity inside that volume.

The information content in any room you or I will ever observe is well below this threshold and not at all bottlenecked by the area of the room, since we observe densities very very far away from this limit.

 

[DennisN]

In particular, can anyone estimate for me how likely this concept will turn out to be confirmed by observation?

I can not, my precognitive skills are not very good . Also, this belongs in the "Beyond the Standard Model" forum part, so I'll ask a mentor for a move of the thread to over there.

 

[Denis]

My objection to the holographic principle is that our universe violates it. Our universe is described as homogeneous and flat, and flat means infinite, thus, you can use an arbitrary large radius R and compute what is inside. Given that it is homogeneous, the amount of information will increase like $R^3$. Its surface only like $R^2$. So, whatever the factor used in the holographic principle, and the information contained in a piece of the homogeneous universe, with sufficient big R the result will be fatal for the holographic principle.

As far as I have understood the idea, if there is more information inside a radius, the whole thing will collapse. No problem, and no contradiction. Our universe can be seen simply as a collapse solution reverted in time. So, at best the holographic principle can tell us something about GR solutions which can survive without singularity in the past as well as the future. But once we nicely live with a solution with a singularity in the past, what would be the point? As a fundamental principle of QG, that would be useless anyway.

 

[Grinkle]

Given that it is homogeneous, the amount of information will increase like R^3.

I don't follow that. Draw a radius of whatever size you please, then let that radius expand and add the extra bits of information in the expanded radius, and you will not find any region where the information has increased by order R^3. Even if that new (or old, I guess) radius contains an event horizon, the information inside the event horizon will be what is on the surface of the horizon, not what is in the volume. And all of the other space not containing an event horizon will have an information density of less than what is in the event horizon, which follows from saying that there is nothing dense enough to create an event horizon.

if there is more information inside a radius, the whole thing will collapse.

This is why I don't see how the information can increase faster than order R^2.

 

[Denis]

I don't follow that. Draw a radius of whatever size you please, then let that radius expand and add the extra bits of information in the expanded radius, and you will not find any region where the information has increased by order R^3.

Hm. We have a homogeneous universe. I think it is natural to propose that the information contained in a given volume is proportional to the number of particles inside the volume. Once we have constant density in a homogeneous universe, we have, then, also constant information density. Thus, the whole information in the sphere with radius R will be proportional to the volume, $R^3$. Not?

which follows from saying that there is nothing dense enough to create an event horizon.

? A large enough piece of matter can have quite small density but create an event horizon.

The Schwarzschild radius is proportional M, $r_S=2GM$. Take any density $\rho$, and a homogeneous piece with that density and radius R, then the mass will be $M=\rho R^3$. So that its Schwarzschild radius is $r_S=2G\rho R^3$. So, whatever $\rho$, you can chose an R so that $r_S > R$.

The, ok, a little correction: In this case, it will collapse if initially at rest. If it already explodes, like a white hole, it may not collapse. In this case, it will have a singularity in the past, the white hole singularity. So what, this is what we have in the BB solution too, a singularity in the past.

 

[Grinkle]

Hm. We have a homogeneous universe. I think it is natural to propose that the information contained in a given volume is proportional to the number of particles inside the volume. Once we have constant density in a homogeneous universe, we have, then, also constant information density. Thus, the whole information in the sphere with radius R will be proportional to the volume, R3R^3. Not?

I agree. The flaw in my reasoning is that the maximum possible information density increases order R^2. In our observable universe, the densities are much lower than this, and I agree with your reasoning that the actual information content will increase order R^3. This does not contradict the holographic principle, which is making a statement about maximum information density. The maximum possible density increases order R^2. If one believes in the existence or potential existence of black holes and event horizons, then I think its a matter of mathematics, not a matter of opinion.

? A large enough piece of matter can have quite small density but create an event horizon.

I just mean that in the thought experiment one can either decide to include objects with event horizons or not.

 

[Denis]

In our observable universe, the densities are much lower than this, and I agree with your reasoning that the actual information content will increase order R^3. This does not contradict the holographic principle, which is making a statement about maximum information density.

It does, because for a large enough R the $R^3$-proportional expression becomes greater than the $R^2$-proportional one. But there is nothing which changes the rule how to count the information contained in that volume. Whatever the proportionality factor for the information per volume, it remains the same, because there is nothing which says that the information contained on Earth is somehow smaller if Earth is considered as a part of some greater part of the universe. And the expanding universe solution remains a valid solution even for arbitrary large R, because the flat homogeneous universe is a solution even for infinite R, so that any large part of it is a valid solution too.

If one believes in the existence or potential existence of black holes and event horizons, then I think its a matter of mathematics, not a matter of opinion.

Correct, it is a matter of mathematics. We have the solution of the expanding flat homogeneous universe. It is the one which we use to describe our own universe, so not some artificial nonsense solution. In this solution, the holographic principle does not hold.

 

[fresh_42]

Correct, it is a matter of mathematics.

This might be a silly question, but doesn't your argument depend on the constant information density? How is this justified?

 

[Denis]

This might be a silly question, but doesn't your argument depend on the constant information density? How is this justified?

What else could be justified if we have a universe with (on the large scale) constant density of matter? The same number of particles in the same volume, add the same temperature if necessary, how could one justify something else as the result than constant information density? And what would be the alternative to simply adding the information from different parts, in a way similar to adding the masses?

 

[fresh_42]

I thought the density of "matter" would be decreasing in an expanding universe.

 

[Denis]

I thought the density of "matter" would be decreasing in an expanding universe.

It decreases with time. But we are not talking about evolution in time, but about a fixed moment of time.

 

[Grinkle]

Whatever the proportionality factor for the information per volume,

You are missing my point. The HP says nothing about empirically observed information per volume in a flat expanding universe with low average information density. The HP does not predict or contradict such a universe. The HP makes a statement about maximum possible information density in any given volume of spacetime.

the information contained on Earth

Again, not the point. The information contained in the Earth's particles gets more dense if the Earth is shrunk. If the Earth is shrunk to its critical mass, an EH will form that will have a surface area such that exactly as many Plank areas on the EH exist as there are bits of information inside the EH. The amount of information it takes to describe the Earth has not changed, just the density of that information.

 

[mitchell porter]

The HP makes a statement about maximum possible information density in any given volume of spacetime.

I too felt sure that Denis must be overlooking something. But not only is he right that this principle is violated by sufficiently large regions in a flat universe; Susskind (and Fischler) already knew this back in 1998! (See section 2.) You have to explicitly say that you are only talking about a volume of spacetime that doesn't cross the cosmological horizon.

 

[Denis]

I too felt sure that Denis must be overlooking something. But not only is he right that this principle is violated by sufficiently large regions in a flat universe; Susskind (and Fischler) already knew this back in 1998! (See section 2.) You have to explicitly say that you are only talking about a volume of spacetime that doesn't cross the cosmological horizon.

Thanks. The natural question which follows is what would be the point of such a particular observation of a relation between a cosmological horizon and its content. And, in particular, why such an observation should be relevant for quantum gravity.

 

[Grinkle]

You have to explicitly say that you are only talking about a volume of spacetime that doesn't cross the cosmological horizon.

Thanks for that reference. This is a different description of the holographic principle than the one I thought myself to be arguing. @Denis, I concede that I didn't understand there is a cosmological version and that is the one your were talking about. One quibble I have remaining (and its minor) is that it doesn't seem that you disagree with the cosmological HP, you are pointing out that it does not hold unconditionally.

I am trying to get a conceptual understanding of where the described limit comes from.

From section 2, just prior to formula 2.2, "The entropy contained within a volume of coordinate size Rh should not exceed the area of the horizon in Planck units." Higher entropy means that more thermodynamically equivalent states exist for a given system at equilibrium. So, if the number of particles is the same, to specify which of the many possible states a volume is in requires more bits for higher entropy - is that a more or less correct way to think about it?

 

[Haelfix]

Ok, a few things here.
The Holographic principle strictly speaking comes from the study of black hole physics. However, it was very quickly realized that it was impossible to have it remain a black hole only phenomenon, and it had to be a more general property of quantum mechanics coupled to gravity.

The very simple heuristic baby version can be justified with a thought experiment. Take a given spherical region of space time with mass M and radius R. Now outside of this radius much further away, collapse a spherically symmetric lightlike cloud of radiation (photons) where you pick the mass of the shell such that, coupled with the inner mass M it will form a black hole with Schwarzschild radius exactly R.

Now, Hawking calculated the entropy of this quantity. The entropy of the system is given by S=A/4G. In other words explicit computation of the black hole entropy yields that it's proportional to the area of the enclosing horizon.

Now, if the second law of thermodynamics holds during this process, it must be that the initial uncollapsed region had S <= A/4G. Which is completely at odds with what you would naively expect. Normally the maximal entropy of a quantum field theory would scale with the volume, but here it's given by at most something proportional to the area. So the statement is that either Hawking calculation is wrong, the second law is violated or you must consider a holographic bound to be a general property of quantum systems coupled to gravity

What this doesn't tell you of course, is how it applies exactly to cosmology and where to put your boundary conditions. For that you need to not just consider spacelike hypersurfaces like the above, but to generalize the whole thing to timelike surfaces and more general geometries. That was done, and in general these carry fancy names like the Bousso bound, the Fischer Susskind bound etc. You need more sophisticated tools like the focusing theorem in GR to prove this, but in some cases this has been done.

Of course the cleanest version occurs with Anti De Sitter spaces, where the holographic principle strikingly applies and is an integral part of the understanding of the system and to Ads/CFT duality

 

[Krill]

Can i ask a side question ?

Our brains are supposed to construct a 3D experience of the world from information in the curved plane of our retinas.

Would that be analogous in any way to the holographic theory ?

(Granted that retinas aren't truly 2D).

 

[craigi]

I have just come across the following on the Astronomy Picture of the Day.

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170423.html​

Here is a quote that I would like to learn more about.

The Holographic Principle, yet unproven, states that there is a maximum amount of information content held by regions adjacent to any surface. Therefore, counter-intuitively, the information content inside a room depends not on the volume of the room but on the area of the bounding walls.​

I looked at the link for "Holographic Principle" and It gave a more formal definition of this concept, but not much about the reasoning behind it.

Can anyone explain this a bit further, or possibly post a link to a good discussion. The Wikipedia article was not particularly helpful to me, except for the following:

The holographic principle is a principle of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional https://www.physicsforums.com/javascript:void(0) to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon.​

In particular, can anyone estimate for me how likely this concept will turn out to be confirmed by observation?

This is actually an incredibly difficult principle to understand fully. It would typically become apparent at the tail end of a postgrad theoretical physics course. Few physicists understand it in a meaningful way. Leonard Susskind has popularised the principle and I recommend searching for his lectures on the subject until you find one which is at the level you prefer. I would suggest that anything else beneath the levels which Susskind explains it at are nothing more than interpretations of Susskind's own attempts to make it available to a wider audience.

Regarding whether it's likely to be confirmed by observation, then we're talking about layers of mathematical abstraction. I have Susskind and Lindesay on my desk right here and even with that I can't tell you that the Holographic Principle is a property of Quantum Gravity or even String Theory. A tiny percentage of physicists might be able to divine that information.

 

[Krill]

This is actually an incredibly difficult principle to understand fully. It would typically become apparent at the tail end of a postgrad theoretical physics course. Few physicists understand it in a meaningful way. Leonard Susskind has popularised the principle and I recommend searching for his lectures on the subject until you find one which is at the level you prefer. I would suggest that anything else beneath the levels which Susskind explains it at are nothing more than interpretations of Susskind's own attempts to make it available to a wider audience.

Regarding whether it's likely to be confirmed by observation, then we're talking about layers of mathematical abstraction. I have Susskind and Lindesay on my desk right here and even with that I can't tell you that the Holographic Principle is a property of Quantum Gravity or even String Theory. A tiny percentage of physicists might be able to divine that information.

Well, OK. Did you ever hear anything about Donald Hoffman, visual perception scientist ?

 

[phinds]

Well, OK. Did you ever hear anything about Donald Hoffman, visual perception scientist ?

I think you're off on the wrong track with that. Cognitive science has nothing to do with the Holographic Principle. As craigi suggested, just look for Susskind's lectures or one of his written popularization of the Holographic Principle.

 

[Krill]

Hi, thanks, I did look at Susskind's lectures, like the one about black holes, and stage debates. I like his stuff, really interesting. I like him, too. I think cognitive science has a lot to do with physics as cognition provides the basis of understanding the physical world. Cognitive scientists say that space and time are constructs of the brain, which are pretty fundamental to physics. In particular Hoffman has some things to say about these. Maybe this is more philosophy of science territory than asking specific questions within a particular field.

It seemed like Susskind was saying that the world we perceive is a projection of a 2D reality on the bounds of our cosmos. Isn't that what Susskind is really saying ? I hope you will forgive me for thinking this sounds reminiscent of our brain constructing a reality from 2D information from our eyeballs.

If Susskind's explanation for the general public is true, then that would mean there is a 2D reality, projected into a 3D (4D with time ?) one, which we pick up on our retinas as 2D, which is then reconstructed by the brain to give us our 3D experience of the world.

How do you unpick the way the brain constructs things, from the understanding of reality which lays beyond the brain's modeling - which is the endeavour of physics isn't it ?

How do you get at the reality beyond the construction ?

 

[craigi]

Well, OK. Did you ever hear anything about Donald Hoffman, visual perception scientist ?

I hadn't, but I just watched his TED talk on conscious reality. It matches my own opinion, but there wasn't anything in there which discussed the Holographic Principle.

 

[phinds]

How do you get at the reality beyond the construction ?

You're off into philosophy, which we don't do here on PF.

 

[craigi]

Hi, thanks, I did look at Susskind's lectures, like the one about black holes, and stage debates. I like his stuff, really interesting. I like him, too. I think cognitive science has a lot to do with physics as cognition provides the basis of understanding the physical world. Cognitive scientists say that space and time are constructs of the brain, which are pretty fundamental to physics. In particular Hoffman has some things to say about these. Maybe this is more philosophy of science territory than asking specific questions within a particular field.

It seemed like Susskind was saying that the world we perceive is a projection of a 2D reality on the bounds of our cosmos. Isn't that what Susskind is really saying ? I hope you will forgive me for thinking this sounds reminiscent of our brain constructing a reality from 2D information from our eyeballs.

If Susskind's explanation for the general public is true, then that would mean there is a 2D reality, projected into a 3D (4D with time ?) one, which we pick up on our retinas as 2D, which is then reconstructed by the brain to give us our 3D experience of the world.

How do you unpick the way the brain constructs things, from the understanding of reality which lays beyond the brain's modeling - which is the endeavour of physics isn't it ?

How do you get at the reality beyond the construction ?

I think if Hoffman makes a false presumption, it's that there is some form of deeper reality. I consider reality to be a largely honorific term. It's not something which Physics dwells upon, because it doesn't change the course of science, but there is an analogous shifting of paradigm which occurs in Physics. I don't see how one interpretation of the equations of Physics should be considered more real than any other.

Space and time have been considered fundamental in Physics but for 100 years, we've known that all is not as it seems. Einstein broke our intuitive perception of space and time. I'd suggest starting with some introductory Relativity, or introductory Quantum Mechanics to see what Physics can teach us about the stuff beneath our intuitive construction of the world. In each of these you'll get an idea about the differences and commonalities in the perceptions of individual observers.

The Holographic Principle describes a way to understand the information, which exists within a region of space. Yes, that description is lower dimensional, but the thing which is not necessarily obvious is what we mean by information in that context.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

what Physics can teach us about the stuff beneath our intuitive construction of the world.

Hi craigi:

Since I will never be a well educated physicist, I am quite curious to understand, as best I can, how a well educated physicist thinks intuitively about physics. In the quote you use "our" (which I underlined in the quote to facilitate locating the word). Does "our" include well educated physicists?

I get the impression from various discussions on this site (as well as from the well known Richard Feynman quote: No one understand quantum mechanics) that when someone becomes a well educated physicist, his/her intuition about the "construction of the world" remains flawed and inadequate, unless the intuition has become entirely mathematical. This is because that for many branches of physics (including quantum mechanics) the way the world works seems to be only accurately described (without metaphorical approximations) in terms of the math.

In this context, I am guessing that the intuition regarding the construction of the world of those well educated physicists who are excluded from "our" now have intuitions which have become completely mathematical. On the other had, the intuition of those well educated physicists who remain included in "our" are those whose intuitive construction of the world remain inadequate.

I would be most interested to see your comments about this.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[craigi]

Since I will never be a well educated physicist, I am quite curious to understand, as best I can, how a well educated physicist thinks intuitively about physics. In the quote you use "our" (which I underlined in the quote to facilitate locating the word). Does "our" include well educated physicists?

Yup. Our human intuition doesn't work very well for anything other than Classical Mechanics and even there it is limited. It's not possible (as far as I'm aware) to train intuition.

I get the impression from various discussions on this site (as well as from the well known Richard Feynman quote: No one understand quantum mechanics) that when someone becomes a well educated physicist, his/her intuition about the "construction of the world" remains flawed and inadequate, unless the intuition has become entirely mathematical. This is because that for many branches of physics (including quantum mechanics) the way the world works seems to be only accurately described (without metaphorical approximations) in terms of the math.

In this context, I am guessing that the intuition regarding the construction of the world of those well educated physicists who are excluded from "our" now have intuitions which have become completely mathematical. On the other had, the intuition of those well educated physicists who remain included in "our" are those whose intuitive construction of the world remain inadequate..

I shouldn't speak for anyone else. There are many people who understand Physics much better than me and spend more time immersed in various fields of specialisation, but when I use the word intuition I use it to mean an instinctive human understanding.

 

[phinds]

Yup. Our human intuition doesn't work very well for anything other than Classical Mechanics and even there it is limited. It's not possible (as far as I'm aware) to train intuition.

I shouldn't speak for anyone else. There are many people who understand Physics much better than me and spend more time immersed in various fields of specialisation, but when I use the word intuition I use it to mean an instinctive human understanding.

I certainly agree w/ all of that but I do think that people who have been immersed in any technical field for a long time do develop an understanding that could perhaps be called "intuition". That may just be semantics though.

 

[Krill]

Can I refer back to what Craigi said that the idea that there is a reality in 2D at the edge of the cosmos is a popularisation of what the Holographic Principle is really all about. Is it an inaccurate simplification of ideas which are beyond most folk's mathematical training ?

I watched a few things by Susskind and his colleagues on this, and to me they seemed to be pretty much saying that (theoretically) this really is a 3D projection from a 2D reality. How far should it be taken as truth or analogy.

Also, in holography there is a light source, it only works with a laser beam. Is there an equivalent light source in the holographic principle ?

If the analogy was a really close one then shouldn't there be a source of energy beyond the edge of the cosmos which animates the hologram ? How far should we take the analogy with a mundane hologram ? Ta.

 

[Krill]

I hadn't, but I just watched his TED talk on conscious reality. It matches my own opinion, but there wasn't anything in there which discussed the Holographic Principle.

Thanks for taking the time to watch that. I got his book Visual Intelligence which is a cool read. I won't side track into the ins and outs of cognitive science, but the Hol Pri did sound like it was saying analogous things to human perception as we understand it, and I didn't see that discussed anywhere. I know Hoffman does maintain a discussion of the Hol Pri with regards to his own theories on one of his papers or youtube vids, and name checks Susskind.

 

[craigi]

Can I refer back to what Craigi said that the idea that there is a reality in 2D at the edge of the cosmos is a popularisation of what the Holographic Principle is really all about. Is it an inaccurate simplification of ideas which are beyond most folk's mathematical training ?

I watched a few things by Susskind and his colleagues on this, and to me they seemed to be pretty much saying that (theoretically) this really is a 3D projection from a 2D reality. How far should it be taken as truth or analogy.

The problem with this is that without knowing what it is that is encoded on the boundary it doesn't tell you much. We can encode in any number of dimensions we choose. For example, the computer you're using right now, uses a 1 dimensional memory system, from that you're looking at a 2D image. We can create 3D representations with it and so on.

If you want to make genuine progress in understanding the Holographic Principle, the question you need to be asking is what it is which is encoded on the boundary.

I also want to re-iterate that it makes little sense to talk of the lower dimensional representation as more real than your familiar instinctive human representation of the world.

Also, in holography there is a light source, it only works with a laser beam. Is there an equivalent light source in the holographic principle ?

No. There is no analogue of the light source in the Holographic Principle. The term Holographic simply refers to a higher dimensional representation stored on a lower dimensional surface.

If the analogy was a really close one then shouldn't there be a source of energy beyond the edge of the cosmos which animates the hologram ? How far should we take the analogy with a mundane hologram.

This has no meaning in the Holographic Principle.

 

[phinds]

For example, the computer you're using right now, uses a 1 dimensional memory system ...

? How do you arrive at that conclusion? Do you understand the addressing schemes used in computers?

 

[craigi]

? How do you arrive at that conclusion? Do you understand the addressing schemes used in computers?

Yup.

 

[phinds]

Yup.

Yup, what ?? I asked how you arrived at the conclusion.

 

[craigi]

Yup, what ?? I asked how you arrived at the conclusion.

It is typical in a computer system for each memory address to be assigned a unique integer from a set of contiguous numbers, in essence a one dimensional array.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I don't really want to go into memory banks, video memory, virtual addressing, memory mapping, indirect jump vectors, multi-dimensional arrays, etc. because I don't think it's helpful to the discussion at hand.