Understanding the Holographic Principle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of gravitational attraction between masses in a two-dimensional context, specifically in relation to the holographic principle. Participants explore the implications of this principle on the nature of gravity and seek simpler explanations and resources for further understanding.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether gravitational attraction exists between two-dimensional masses, suggesting that the force should still be present based on mass alone and proposing the use of a surface integral.
  • Another participant challenges the assertion made by the lecturer that gravity is an illusion in two dimensions, seeking clarification on the validity of this claim.
  • Some participants reference a physicist's viewpoint that gravity is an illusion, indicating that this perspective is linked to the holographic principle and remains a topic of debate.
  • A specific article from the New York Times is mentioned as a source that discusses the idea of gravity as an illusion, although its interpretation is questioned.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding the lecturer's claim about gravity being an illusion in two dimensions. There is no consensus on the validity of this stance, and it is acknowledged that the topic remains debatable.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of the relationship between dimensionality and gravitational force, with references to the holographic principle adding layers of interpretation that are not fully resolved.

pythagoras88
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Today in a classical mechanics lecture, we were posed a question on whether there will be gravitational attraction between masses if the 2 masses were squashed into a 2D masses(so is flat). At first, i thought the force should still exist, since the force only depends on masses, so maybe can just do a surface integral instead of volume integral.

But, the answer given was that, gravity is an illusion that do not exist in 2D and the lecturer said this is linked to holographic principle.

Hmmm, the online sources seems to be a bit too esoteric for me, is there a simpler explanation for this? and, which book or online source should i refer to for more information?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your lecturer actually stated that as a fact?
 
He quoted a physicist(i guess) from princeton that says that gravity is illusion, so i guess he kind of agree with him.

Is this stance still debatable?
 
pythagoras88 said:
He quoted a physicist(i guess) from princeton that says that gravity is illusion, so i guess he kind of agree with him.

I'm pretty sure he is talking about this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html"

Is this stance still debatable?

Yes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Graduate The holometer - experimentally testing the holographic principle?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K
Graduate Twistors and celestial holography
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
Graduate Exploring the Holographic Principle: Space Recession and Inflation
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad Work - Energy Principle Application to Fluid Flow
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
Graduate "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
High School Does Gravity Act on Everything? Fundamental to GR?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School How to shorten this speech about BH?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
Graduate MOND Theory Primer: Stacy McGaugh's Research Program Explored
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
Graduate An odd question regarding Bernoulli's Principle
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Graduate How Do Garrett Lisi's Theories Challenge Current Physics Paradigms?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K