Mindscape 218 | Raphael Bousso on Black Holes and the Holographic Universe 

Maybe if we ask on Patreon.....!!!

Debatable.

@@SubstanceP888 Sure, it depends on why one is here. I'm here as an adjunct to Dr Carroll's Biggest Ideas in the Universe series. The premise there was to pull no punches and talk real physics. But some time ago Dr Carroll wandered off more often into the softer sciences in which I have no interest. That's when I pulled my Patreon support. So I'm always glad when at least this youtube series gets back on track for me.

"... almost every superposition..." is too vague, non even fitting the analogy minimum definition as a figure of style... But, OK, we should be able to answer after reading the paper... 👌

Yes, the black holes have been described as “eyes” that decohere all states. I prefer to see the black holes as buttons that hold together (stitched up) “reality”.😅

Perhaps it’s computationally reducible? ^.^

Isn’t it because the ring is showing you the same “one dimensional” source as seen from different places in the universe that encircle the distorting mass from your perspective?

A link to any video on this Einstein ring? Thanks

To start with, nothing that you've mentioned has anything to do with the holographic principle, or to Hawking radiation either. Second, Einstein rings are created when the light from an entire galaxy is 'bent' around another galaxy that sits between us and the one further away. Now, most, if not all, galaxies (including the Milky Way's) _do_ happen to have a supermassive black hole at their centre, but Einstein rings are purely gravitational in nature and black holes aren't strictly needed for them to be created - any sufficiently massive object (or collection of objects) will do. Lastly, there is no "dimensional upgrade". There is 2D light coming from a distant galaxy, and you see a 2D Einstein ring as that lights trajectory (travelling on geodesic 'straight lines') is 'bent' around a closer galaxy. There is no 1D. Electrons are described in physics as being _point_ particles - and points _are_ 1D, but that's about the only time you'll ever hear about 1D objects. We live in a 3D universe, and thus everything we can see is 2D, even if something _looks_ 1D, upon closer examination it will turn out to actually be 2D. Hope that helps a bit. Einstein rings are actually pretty cool, because the phenomena allows us to see _very_ old galaxies that are _very_ far away and that would ordinarily be invisible to us as they lie behind other galaxy structures! Good luck with your physics journey, have a great day!

@@simesaid point particles aren’t even strictly points. Beneath the plank length size loses meaning as we know it. Further, with the probability of interaction being a cloud in quantum mechanics explicit classical size as we know it does not exist.

Because that's philosophy. Science is concerned with testing hypothesis via experimentation, that's all

@@Snozcumber Yep it is philosophy, no doubt. Seeing that Sean now has a chair in philosophy, I'm not sure that he would back away from the question because of that.

Gravitiy is nothing. In the infinite realm only relative vacuums exist.But you can name it to absolute vacuum if you don't mind.

@@bencegyurky1596 Cool,,,case closed,,,physicists can now rejoice in your wisdom.

@@karagi101 American!

Legend 👌

@@karagi101 The duality between the 1. invisible and holographic (the 2. Bound and 3. Bulk) duality within a duality. It really is a trinity.

@@karagi101 hmmm.🤔

you're... disappointed that this podcast didn't solve quantum+gravity? lol

How local? You can test the local curvature of spacetime, by measuring spaghettification and the ansitropy in the local ambient cosmic microwave background radiation. You can calculate the time to the horizon by the time it takes you to be causally disconnected from the CMB and the mass by the amount of spaghettification with respect to the rate of CMB shift.

@@hugegamer5988 You forgot that real black holes are not static or stationary. They're growing by consuming stuff/ radiation , they merge with other black holes etc. Their horizons that we observe are "apparent" or dynamical horizons, not the absolute event horizons. So, defining a timelike "stretched horizon", that lies just outside the "global Event horizon" needs knowledge of tne future history of spacetime, generically. Black holes are not isolated, as in theoretical papers, where it is assumed that they're asymptotically stationary...

@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 they don’t assume the horizon is asymptotically stationary instead they assume that infalling mass updates the horizon the speed of light causing the surface to ring its measurable during large mergers

@@hugegamer5988 The whole thing about " black hole complementarity" is based on the concept of the "stretched horizons". As i already said, these notions of "stretched horizons" are basically meaningless when you have e.g. merging black holes... Before merging, the horizons of the holes are "apparent", they're not "event horizons". Stretched horizons are coordinate dependent. They don't have any " fundamental" physical meaning...

@@dimitrispapadimitriou5622 I believe you have failed to understand correctly. From basic quantum mechanics we know the stretched infalling spacetime lengthens the wavelength to larger than the observed universe while with Heisenberg uncertainty we know the momentum is unfathomably large and these along with other basic postulates in quantum mechanics is what gives a physical spatial basis for maintaining a 2 dimensional surface that preserves information such as quantum states and entanglement. No need to see into the future any more than quantum mechanics currently does as measured on the benchtop.