The breathless tone of this article obscures rather than illuminates its subject. It sounds as if the author describes a box with some particles bouncing around inside, and every time a particle bounces off the wall of the box the outside glows briefly indicating the location and intensity of the collision. The author is amazed that by repeatedly measuring this, you can draw inferences about what's going on in the box.

I can't see what's 'outrageous' about this. You need a lower surface which registers information about activity inside a higher-dimensional volume, some way to accurately read that information, and the time/patience to repeat the measurement many times. Isn't this how radar works, or feeling your way around a pitch-dark room using only the 2-dimensional surface of your hands (or shins)? We know from computer science that you can mathematically encode any structure of arbitrary dimension into a binary tree. One might as well ask how it's possible that our complex 3 dimensional world can be contained in the flat surface of a mirror, film strip, or camera sensor.

If you can convert back and forth between a 2D representation and a 3D representation, and different phenomena are more easily modeled in each, does it matter which is "real"? Unless of course you can come up with a specific prediction and experiment to test it.

Maybe fifth time's the charm. ;-)

There's not necessarily any breakthrough right around the corner and we shouldn't rush to coronation preemptively, but there's a lot of physics "voting with their feet" for holography as the article says, and I think it's officially time to start getting hyped. It could have sanity-restoring answers to questions of quantum weirdness, albeit at the rather expensive cost of giving up even more on our day to day intuitions about space and time in favor of an apparently informational substrate.

String theory had a generation of great science communicators writing its books and singing its praises, but holography doesn't yet have equivalent public champions, and I hope that's something that changes sooner than later.

That sounds a little like the sophons in the novel Three Body Problem. IIRC, aliens took a photon, unfolded it to a flat surface to etch circuitry on, then folded it back up and fired the photon at earth where it unfolded again and did the bidding of the aliens.

> you can decipher the entire contents of the box just by repeatedly measuring points on the surface

So if the box is both inside and outside of a black hole, is that a path for information to leave a black hole?

Consider time itself: one beginning, and many endings. Why many endings? And who even asks the question in the first place? Many intelligent observers, with many endings, but the same beginnings. Perhaps the black holes are a hint to our own ending?

We're born and blink into existence. And then we die and fade into the void, carrying our varied stories with us.

Logically, it doesn't make sense, and we can't possibly know the answer. But what if all those ends wrapped around to the same beginning?

Would you look at the world differently?

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoCYY9sa2kU

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klpDHn8viX8

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYSKEbd956M

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNEBhwimJWs

Would this imply that time is the third dimension?

"Having space" is just a consequence of black holes. If you have more information in a volume than can be encoded on its surface in theory, you have enough mass inside the volume to make it a black hole and the event horizon then has enough space to encode the information even if the original surface did not.

The correspondence between information, thermodynamics, and mass that causes black holes to 'make it possible' to holographically encode all the information inside is what makes this theory so tempting. What if everything is information, and black holes aren't an expression of 'too much mass', but rather just a result of 'too much information to store'. This theory, if it existed, would demonstrate a key result of both relativity and quantum theory based on a very simple premise, and suggests it might then be possible to base both General Relativity and Quantum Theory on top of a simpler theory.

> That’s a violation of logic and geometry. It asks us to erase the categorical difference between square meters and cubic meters.

No, that's sheer nonsense.

> There is no negative mass, so you can always infer the one real arrangement of stuff inside from the warping of space-time at the surface of your box.

Positive mass does not make this argument work. Two bodies in GR can have different distributions of mass but identical exterior geometry. A counterexample is two spherically symmetric, uncharged bodies with the same total gravitational mass but different radial density profiles. By Birkhoff’s theorem, their exterior vacuum geometries are identical.

Just as acceleration through space causes [the same effect as] gravity, could regular gravity be the movement through TIME?

Could gravity be a facet of time as electricity is to magnetism and vice versa? and the reason we cannot "isolate" gravity is because it's interwoven with time?

But then it would be weird that photos who don't experience time are affected by gravity..

Or maybe space, time and gravity are a trinity?

(no I'm not high, but maybe I should be)

But then Hawking argued back the opposite case, which in simple terms means that some things can, indeed, escape an event horizon. In fact, name dropping Hawking just to mention his views as they stood before his 1973 work, and his 1974 model of Hawking radiation seems dangerously incomplete journalistic reporting.

In 1974 Hawking formulated what we now know as Hawking Radiation, which is the *exact opposite* of what was previously believed about the impossibility of anything coming back from a black hole. Whilst still not conclusively proven as a physical fact, this did win him the Special Fundamental Physics Prize in 2013. specifically for his discovery of Hawking radiation from black holes and his deep contributions to quantum gravity and quantum aspects of the early universe.

Gah I am not a fan of pop-sci simplifications like this for the sake of a soundbite. The author goes onto explain how no, a picture is not enough, you need to actually measure the distortion of spacetime at the surface. Somebody is going to walk away thinking this stuff is possible, that maybe psychics really can detect something wrong with them.

There are other dimensionality!

The dimensions are like origami, not parallel universes, however the relationships are as though such (all origami pieces then hyperdimensionality relate.)

If we call the underlying “universal potential” and whatever we think our universe as, is a plane for hyperdimensional coordinates, much of this will begin to make sense.

Gravity (and space time) is a “universal field” that “falls” Around the distributed mass (vector torsions of mass particles) and mass particles are universal potential (same stuff as measured energy in a photon) is half spin vector locked discrete amounts.

Sub-atomic particles may then be discrete spin lock configurations and not distinct in any other way.

This would make the Higgs particle a lie, and the Higgs field this deformation of gravitational surface area.

Just what I’ve come up with. Existential reality (universal potential distributing) is holographic and gravity is half spin vector torsion on a plane of universal existence.

space is an illusion...The only thing that is absolute is consciousness, on top of which all illusions stand.

This is a simplification to the point of just being wrong. Gauss’s law works for gravity; if you put a shell around Earth you have no way of knowing whether it’s a planet or an Earth-mass black hole inside. Assuming spherical symmetry of density, anyway.