(no title)
Rattled | 3 years ago
I've struggled to get beyond their popular science descriptions to the actual theories, I find descriptions like the amplituhedron being 'a multidimensional jewel' distracting, if you have any suggestions where to start for a deeper understanding of this one I'd be interested.
hughesjj|3 years ago
These are the coolest ideas ever and they literally relate to computational complexity and information theory. It's super cool.
ER=EPR and [complexity=action](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CA-duality) especially imo
TechBro8615|3 years ago
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
fartsucker69|3 years ago
What they're really seeing is that mathematically something can be expressed with less dimensions or degrees of freedom than what you observe in the real world, and then make the conclusion that therefor the dimensions and properties etc. that we observe are some emergent property and not fundamental.
But you can't make this conclusion from the mathematical model.
For example, if I have a finite sized two dimensional plane where each point is associated with some function f(x,y),you can trivially express it as a one dimensional system where all the rows of the plane are sort of unwound onto a single line. This trick does not work for infinite 2D spaces but there are other ways to remap infinite sized spaces onto finite ones (e.g. via tan).
Yet there's nothing fundamental about this, it's just a mathematical modelling trick.
ouid|3 years ago
saboot|3 years ago
Enginerrrd|3 years ago
https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.08444
Here's a more conceptual introduction to that concept:
https://web.stanford.edu/~oas/SI/QM/papers/SpaceFromQMCarrol...
DebtDeflation|3 years ago
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-spacetime...
philipov|3 years ago
danbruc|3 years ago
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_vqDt-ETU
philipov|3 years ago