Tuesday, 30 July 2013

What if we already know the fundamentals?

Music from single lines of C-code...

"Dutch physicist and string theorist Erik Verlinde has generated a self-contained, logical derivation of the equivalence principle based on the starting assumption of a holographic universe. Given this situation, gravity would not be a true fundamental force as is currently thought but instead an "emergent property" related to entropy. Verlinde's approach to explaining gravity apparently leads naturally to the correct observed strength of dark energy."


In a larger and more speculative sense, the holographic principle suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies.

"Space is in the first place a device introduced to describe the positions and movements of particles. Space is therefore literally just a storage space for information. This information is naturally associated with matter. Given that the maximal allowed information is finite for each part of space, it is impossible to localize a particle with infinite precision at a point of a continuum space. In fact, points and coordinates arise as derived concepts."

Begins to sound a lot like the uncertainty principle arising from digital information processing. I would say this makes it increasingly plausible that fundamental information processing in the universe (at the holographic screen) is fundamentally deterministic.

"Thus we conclude that acceleration is related to an entropy gradient. This will be one of our main principles: inertia is a consequence of the fact that a particle in rest will stay in rest because there are no entropy gradients."

"We identified a cause, a mechanism, for gravity. It is driven by differences in entropy, in whatever way needed, and a consequence of the statistical averaged random dynamics at the microscopic level. The reason why gravity has to keep track of energies as well as entropy differences is now clear. It has to, because this is what causes motion!"

"We are entering an unknown territory in which space does not exist to begin with."

I love this paper :D

"The assumptions we made have been natural: they fit with existing ideas and are supported by several pieces of evidence."

It appears someone had similar thoughts to me when it comes to information in the universe. I hinted about these a little bit in my entries "Nothing defies reason" and "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.". Of course the paper is kind of old news already, but I hadn't really read it before.

The paper presents a rather plausible model in my opinion for gravity as an emergent entropic force in the universe and supposedly the same idea explains dark energy as well.


If all this is true then our understanding of fundamental physics of this universe might in fact be rather complete in certain ways. Though we should still figure out the rules of the holographic screens.

...in other news today, philosophy is bullshit, according to none other than David Hume...


Me playing with subwoofers isn't a waste of time either, even when it comes to physics...

Perhaps the simple truth is that there are no paradoxes or unanswerable questions. The universe is simply a deterministic digital computer and it like everything else exists due to necessity, kind of like the value of pi. After all when we get right down to fundamentals, no coherent alternative to determinism has even ever been suggested.

In logic and philosophy, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident. Any rational postulate must have empirical predictive power over alternatives. Present me some repeatable empirical evidence to justify your postulate or you will have failed to persuade me and along with your failure to do so, your argument has failed by definition as well.

-So, at some point we had nothing.
-No, at no point did we have nothing.

No comments:

Post a Comment