Thread

1. glenstein · 1790352638 · focus · HN ↗

   As a non expert who's just curious about science but also tries to talk like a normal person, from what I can tell holography really seems like it's now the leading candidate to be the next big conceptual revolution in physics.

   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.

   1. furyofantares · 1790391978 · focus · HN ↗

      I can't tell if you're aware that the holographic principle came from string theory

      1. glenstein · 1790445995 · focus · HN ↗

         I can't tell if you're aware that they're not synonyms.

         1. furyofantares · 1790448371 · focus · HN ↗

            Well the reason I couldn't tell if you were aware is because they aren't synonyms and your comment is perfectly reasonable, but I picked up an (incorrect, it seems) vibe that you thought they were unrelated. Which, they kind of are! It's a fairly interesting story how it came about as a property of string theory but appears to be leaving it behind.

            1. glenstein · 1790692916 · focus · HN ↗

               I recommend growing your charitable interpretation muscle, it heads off avoidable confusions like these :)

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.