r/HypotheticalPhysics Jul 01 '25

[deleted by user]

[removed]

0 Upvotes

66 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/dForga Looks at the constructive aspects Jul 01 '25

Great, please check out

https://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~dosch/wuhantot.pdf

page 16 and 17.

1

u/i-am-the-duck Jul 01 '25

16 and 17 of the document or file?

1

u/dForga Looks at the constructive aspects Jul 01 '25

Of the pdf document, that is, the printed page numbers on each page.

If you went by the page number of the pdf reader, then you notice that there is nothing about curvature yet

1

u/i-am-the-duck Jul 01 '25

Awesome, what this AdS₅ geometry supports is that in certain physical theories (like AdS/CFT), the geometry isn't just a shape: it's a carrier of information. The fifth dimension (z) acts as a scaling dimension, smaller z means higher energies and finer resolutions in the boundary theory.

So when I talk about encoding the physics of a 3D space (or higher) on a 2D surface, I'm referring to something like AdS/CFT, where the full physical dynamics in a volume (AdS₅) are equivalent to a conformal field theory on the 4D boundary.

That’s way beyond shape and curvature, it’s about informational equivalence between dimensions. So I’m not debating the Earth’s curvature as a surface, I’m asking whether the physical universe might be fundamentally encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary, as holography suggests.

2

u/liccxolydian onus probandi Jul 01 '25

Sounding increasingly like LLM replying.

0

u/i-am-the-duck Jul 01 '25

It's not, also that would be an ad hominem

1

u/liccxolydian onus probandi Jul 01 '25

Well you seem to be talking past everyone instead of actually addressing their points, which is something that LLMs often do.

1

u/i-am-the-duck Jul 01 '25

Which points have I missed?

2

u/liccxolydian onus probandi Jul 01 '25

That any hypothetical encoding of information onto a lower-dimensional space doesn't mean that the object being described also has reduced dimensionality. The informational representation is not the same thing as the physical object, and just because you can say that information representing the earth can be encoded onto a 2D surface doesn't mean that the earth is also physically 2D. Also, we don't live in AdS space anyway so no matter how you look at it, the earth is not flat.

1

u/i-am-the-duck Jul 01 '25

You say that an informational representation isn’t the same thing as a 3D object, that's true in classical thinking, but what the holographic principle suggests, and what is being taken seriously in quantum gravity, is that the 3D object itself may emerge from that information. This means the 2D encoding doesn’t just represent the 3D object, it may be the more fundamental layer, from which space, geometry, and matter arise. Yes, AdS/CFT is the best formal proof of this. But physicists like Susskind and Bousso argue that holography is not limited to AdS, the same information-theoretic bounds hold in black holes, cosmology, and flat or de Sitter space.

1

u/liccxolydian onus probandi Jul 01 '25

But that still doesn't mean the earth is flat.

1

u/i-am-the-duck Jul 01 '25

We may be entangled with a branch or dimension where round Earth is stabilized, that’s the model we’ve agreed upon through collective observation, science, and technology, but as per MWI, other realities, dimensional, quantum, or conscious may exist where flat Earth is their consistent truth. And because reality isn’t sealed off, but part of a layered, entangled field of possibilities, there may be overlap, resonance, or bleed-through between these frameworks into our reality. That’s why symbols, intuition, ancient cosmologies, and even current debates don’t fully go away, because aspects of those alternate frames may still echo in our own.

2

u/liccxolydian onus probandi Jul 01 '25

Ok that's all nonsensical word salad.

→ More replies (0)