Locality in this classical sense is a myth. Nothing is where it seems to be. An elephant, falling into a black hole, must be in more than one place at one time.

Source:
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/mg19225751.200-the-elephant-and-the-event-horizon.html

This is one of the most fascinating items I've seen in years. And presented in a way that most people should be able to grasp some element of it.

Enjoy!

Way Cool, DA....

"Even though Maldacena's universe was very different from ours, the elegance of the theory suggested that our universe might be something of a grand illusion - an enormous cosmic hologram (New Scientist, 27 April 2002, p 22)."

As do the several other theories, re: my 10/16 post:
"If I want to think of outside the universe (our 4-D universe), I think of it as a 4-D bubble on an anti-DeSitter membrane in 8-space being sucked into a blck hole. -Hey, maybe that's why we're expanding; being stretched as we decend into the black hole. Hope this gives you a laugh (...but pause for a thought too). I've certainly questioned all these [4-D] precepts too; and still do!"

Speaking of relativity, "Now that notion has been shattered, says Susskind"

Finally!

~samwik

P.S. I wasn't kidding, check out anti-deSitter space (or just deSitter space).
~Space is defined by the horizons around (& within) it. Dimension ~= Horizon ??

[qote]The higher-dimensional strings can be thought of as a "holographic" projection of the quantum particles on the surface, similar to the way a laser creates a 3D hologram from the information contained on a 2D surface.[/quote]
That is a curious statement. Seems to me that foil holograms are effectively 2-D in structure (aside from digital optics created by indentation) and they can only present a 2-D image. If you want a 3-D image you need an emulsion hologram that has depth as well as linear extent. It is a non-trivial distinction.

The information of a black hole only depends upon its event horizon area - that has a finite number of bits/unit area. One presumes Suskind knows the difference between 2-D and 3-D hologram generations and chose wisely.

Now I can't get that old Firesign Theater jingle out of my head:

How Can You Be In Two Places At Once, When You're Not Anywhere At All...


~~Later, when it gets annoying I'll try that, re: below.
Thanks again DA,
~s

Perhaps you could forget it if you listened to "Waiting for the Electrician or Someone Like Him."

If you switch back & forth between observers,
as the article referenced does, you make a real muddle.
Alice observes the elephant from one frame,
Bob from a second and no allowance is made.
I won't try to speak to the multi dimensional
math, but confusing frames doesn't seem to me
to be a course to enlightenment.
If you dropped that elephant into the black hole,
and no-one was observing, would it make a sound??

Relativity has always assumed multiple frames-of-reference. This just extends it to another realm of reality.

Not only is time relative ... space is too.

It should not be much of a surprise.

And no doubt the entire matter is resolved by the fact that message can not be transmitted between the frames-of-reference faster than the speed of light in a vacuum keeping it all logically consistent.

What a pile of garbage!
The simultaneity is relative, so it is not "at one time".

Pseudoscience + pseudoreprting

ES

Extrasense ... please don't criticize what you don't understand.

Doing so leads me to want to tell you what I'm really thinking and I don't want to give the censors the pleasure.

What do you mean? I have made the pertinent calculations, in the framework of General Relativity. Jeez..

ES

You have the calculation? What a wonderful revelation.

In what peer reviewed journal can I find them?

When do you get your Nobel Prize?

If you would know anything at all, those calculation have been made before me either. I did it to check if they have avoided any mistakes. That would be a kill/ if I'd find them in error!/


E:)S

Which, I presume, translates to the fact that they have never been written up and submitted to peer review where errors might actually be found.

Quoting DA Morgan from the ?God & science? thread on Origins.

?We are the elephant. We are part of the universe. A part that is conscious of its own existence. And we are just desperately trying to comprehend our environment and our condition.?

DA: That was an excellent conclusion (along with Te's) for the G&s thread, but I just had to clarify my take on this analogy used on that thread. It seemed too off-topic over there, but is much more on-topic here (if not too picky).

*_*

?According to Bob, the elephant went through and floated along happily for eons until it turned into spaghetti.? ?from the NewScientist link above-

Just to clarify (although I?m sure we?re both partially wrong), I see it as if we are ?Bob? riding along with the elephant (the universe, or 4-D bubble) as it is sucked into the event horizon, floating happily along it?s trajectory (the anti-deSitter membrane) toward the singularity, stretching ?for eons until it [the universe/elephant] turned into spaghetti.?

Long live the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Out in 8-space, Alice (God) is watching curiously, as we are, as you say, ?desperately trying to comprehend our environment and our condition.?

Long may we ride the FSM!
~Sam