Thread

1. wavewrangler · 1790390569 · focus · HN ↗

   Lets imagine that we are the are the flat landers for a second. We're doing something, the laundry, and we feel an eerie feeling come over us as if we're being watched. No one else in the room, so you shrug it off. Come to find out, our 3D counterparts were actually observing us, unbeknownst to us (aside from that eerie feeling we got). Stay with me! So, while we are on the persons screen or a piece of paper in front of them (this of course assumes 2D existence is possible, just for the example) and they are viewing us, is this at all similar to what this article is talking about? In this scenario, can we label one Ads and one CFT? Another question kind of, but maybe not separate to that, asks if Ads/CFT is a mathematical description of how things project into seemingly completely separate things depending on your perspective? But they're indeed the same. An example of what I mean, so in our 2D existence we notice a pulsing circle, and then in our 3D existence we realize that pulsing circle is actually someone playing with a ball on a string and the pulsing is the ball getting closer to us in more dimensions than can be expressed properly in the 2D view. That's kind of what I mean...so is Ads/CFT description of the same kind of idea as my... admittedly weak example? Lastly, I would like to say that Quanta is fantastic. I don't understand a lot of what is written in their pages sometimes but that's not due to the writing by any stretch. But it makes me think, which is why I still read it anyway! If I'm not mistaken this is the 2nd time in as many days it was featured on the front page, and rightfully so, I think. Anywho, thanks for reading/taking time to respond if you do.

   1. dreamcompiler · 1790392383 · focus · HN ↗

      In a sense it's the inverse of what you describe. A 3D creature could easily see everything happening in a 2D space because all the information describing the 2D space fits comfortably in a mere slice of the 3D space. It's trivial because 3D space is "bigger" than 2D space.

      What AdS/CFT implies is the opposite: That all the information needed to describe a 3D space can fit in a 2D space, like a hologram. This is astounding and extremely counterintuitive.

      The hitch is that our universe is (probably) not AdS; it's dS. And the astounding math doesn't work for the de Sitter space we live in.

      1. wavewrangler · 1790393701 · focus · HN ↗

         Ahh. Okay...So, this is kind of like the 2D entities trying to make sense of their 3D counterparts, and the 3D counterparts getting the sensation of someone watching them, but its the 2D beings discussing the existence of the 3D entities instead of vice versa? I know this is quite a basic comparison but it helps me grasp it a bit better. Also, is there any particular reason that it's 3D and 2D? That is, is there any other dimension number that could accommodate the correspondence? Or does the math say it's only 3D to 2D and vice versa where this works? And do we know why or why not if so? Thanks

         1. dreamcompiler · 1790395600 · focus · HN ↗

            That's the idea, but it's like the 2D creatures know everything about the 3D creatures, which the 3D creatures find quite shocking.

            The actual dimensionality is 4D to 3D once you add in time. But the math basically says an nD hyperbolic conformal manifold (AdS) can be completely described by its nD-1 boundary (CFT).* So I think it works in any number of dimensions.

            *Oversimplified and probably wrong, but probably close enough for this discussion.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.