Entanglement is when two or more particles are separated but still somehow connected, right? But there has to be space in the first place in order them to even be separated... So how can space and time arise from objects that are already separated in space?
Bright question! I think the idea is that our apparent spacetime (and stuff in it) is a holographic dual of quantum bits on a spacetime having one less space dimension. So, any entanglement between two particles in our spacetime would have to be mirrored in some kind of entanglement in its holographic dual. I am a lay person and so am unsure of what I wrote. Also, I think that spacetime on the holographic dual is very special (possesses what they call conformal invariance which is just jargon to me).
I think you are trying to place entanglement in spacetime, like talking about what happened before the big bang. Think about spacetime emerging from the entanglement of particles not something that affects the entanglement of particles.
Let's run with that. How do you know that they're actually "separated"? One of the notions that's interesting to think about is that the space between entangled systems is, from some perspectives, illusory - at least in terms of the degrees of freedom that are allowed to the systems. They're not violating locality because they're the same place - the particles share the same sort of "network of freedom", giving them identical spatial qualities. Now what this does to black holes is *bananas* . . bananas but . . also, well, consistent, and not inconceivable. It's also deeply interesting to consider that "empty" space - with just vacuum energy and nothing else - _maybe_ have different spatial qualities, in addition to the quality of being "empty". Someone needs to design some experiments for this. Maybe they have already, and this has already been falsified by LIGO or some other apparatus. Another pathetic layperson me, though.
"there's nothing here that say's that if I take a shell of matter in ADS and it collapses and forms a black hole that there can't be a smoother region (of spacetime - my thought) behind the horizon for some time because that's not a typical case" and then someone from audience states that "once it collapses and forms an event horizon, everything is in the future, how can it come backwards in time? Whatever happens after that it cannot go backwards in time" - isn't that what happened after "the big bang" ? Around 47m - I think that's the best part of the whole lecture :)
Well, they are putting super selection out.
Keep in mind this is before they measured a gravational wave
Thankyou
Susskind and Maldecena are there
Safiyyah Sabreen Syeed I think i see the top of susskinds head
You're dangerous - and not in any good way.
Tough room.
Entanglement is when two or more particles are separated but still somehow connected, right? But there has to be space in the first place in order them to even be separated... So how can space and time arise from objects that are already separated in space?
Bright question! I think the idea is that our apparent spacetime (and stuff in it) is a holographic dual of quantum bits on a spacetime having one less space dimension. So, any entanglement between two particles in our spacetime would have to be mirrored in some kind of entanglement in its holographic dual. I am a lay person and so am unsure of what I wrote. Also, I think that spacetime on the holographic dual is very special (possesses what they call conformal invariance which is just jargon to me).
I think you are trying to place entanglement in spacetime, like talking about what happened before the big bang. Think about spacetime emerging from the entanglement of particles not something that affects the entanglement of particles.
Let's run with that. How do you know that they're actually "separated"? One of the notions that's interesting to think about is that the space between entangled systems is, from some perspectives, illusory - at least in terms of the degrees of freedom that are allowed to the systems. They're not violating locality because they're the same place - the particles share the same sort of "network of freedom", giving them identical spatial qualities. Now what this does to black holes is *bananas* . . bananas but . . also, well, consistent, and not inconceivable. It's also deeply interesting to consider that "empty" space - with just vacuum energy and nothing else - _maybe_ have different spatial qualities, in addition to the quality of being "empty". Someone needs to design some experiments for this. Maybe they have already, and this has already been falsified by LIGO or some other apparatus. Another pathetic layperson me, though.
I still don't see how anything can exist without space and time. What is being entangled and "where" does it exist if there is no space?
tough audience :) never let finish a thought...
"there's nothing here that say's that if I take a shell of matter in ADS and it collapses and forms a black hole that there can't be a smoother region (of spacetime - my thought) behind the horizon for some time because that's not a typical case" and then someone from audience states that "once it collapses and forms an event horizon, everything is in the future, how can it come backwards in time? Whatever happens after that it cannot go backwards in time" - isn't that what happened after "the big bang" ? Around 47m - I think that's the best part of the whole lecture :)