# Re: follow-up on Holographic principle and MWI

From: danny mayes <dmayes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 00:25:33 -0400

Russell Standish wrote:

>On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:02:12PM -0400, danny mayes wrote:
>
>
>>Well, as described in the FOR think of the multiverse as a block, made
>>up of different stacks of pictures that comprise individual universes as
>>they move through time. Now try to adjust that to what is really going
>>on: space time is expanding out from the Big Bang. If you could remove
>>yourself from the multiverse and watch it, time would be expanding at an
>>increasing area, just as the spatial dimensions are. The reason
>>information storage capacity would equal the surface area of a given
>>object is that any object or area is actually existing in all these
>>overlapping timelines, or virtually identically universes. Therefore,
>>if you assume the "time-area" is expanding at a proportional rate to the
>>spatial volume, you would need to divide a cube 10^300 Planck units on a
>>side by 10^100 to take out the information that is moving into the
>>
>>
>
>This is very sloppy - if "time-area" were proportional to volume, then
>the divisor would be 10^300. Perhaps you meant proportional to length,
>but then I do not see why this should be.
>
>
>
>>> You are correct. This is very sloppy. First, I made a typo in
referring to the cube as 10^300 on a side when I intended to say 10^300
in volume. Also, the time area would be proportional to the other
spatial dimensions (a side) of the cube, not the volume. My apologies.
Again, the "time area" should equal a side if it is considered
equivalent to a spatial dimension.

>>volume or area of time, since we lose this information as we are stuck
>>on a solitary time line and losing the multiverse information to
>>decoherence. This is simply another way of saying we lose the
>>information to the other universes, I'm just explaining why it would be
>>the amount it is through the mental imagery of time expanding to fill a
>>space equivalent to the spatial dimensions.
>>
>>
>>
>
>But decoherence increases information, not loses it.
>
>
>>> It increases the information we have in this universe, by removing
the interference of all the information from all the alternative
outcomes. We gain the information of one possible outcome. From the
multiverse view, there is no gain or loss of information, but from our
perspective we gain one bit of information and the rest ends up in the
alternative outcomes.

>
>
>>Taking a bird's eye view, and watching the cube moving through the
>>multiverse, all the overlapping universes the cube comprises, the cube
>>could store 10^300 bits of information- equal to it's volume. However,
>>if you measure the information in any individual universe, you have to
>>divide the cube over all the overlapping universes it comprises, or an
>>"area" of time equal to the the area of one of it's sides (again
>>assuming the expansion of time is proportional to the expansion of the
>>spatial dimensions.) This leaves information storage capacity equal to
>>the surface area of the object .
>>
>>I am basically taking the block view of the multiverse seriously, and
>>dividing the information storage capacity by the area of all the stacks
>>of pictures the cube exists on, because we can only measure the
>>information on the one stack that is our universe. The area of the
>>different stacks can be thought of as an area of time, and would equal
>>one of the spatial areas that comprise the cube if time expansion is
>>proportional to spatial expansion.
>>
>>This makes sense to me, but then again I am an attorney....
>>
>>Danny Mayes
>>
>>
>
>The only thing that makes sense to me is that maximal decoherence
>occurs by arranging observers around the 4/3\pi solid angle of the
>volume in question. Thus the maximum decoherence rate is proportional to the
>surface area of the volume. Also, we know that linear spatial dimensions are
>increasing linearly in flat space-time, so combining the two implies
>that maximal decoherence will occur quadratically as a function of
>time.
>
>Does this give us the holographic principle? Hmm..
>
>Also, what happens if space-time is not so flat - say spatial expansion
>starts to accelerate like its doing now?
>
>
>
>>> With regards to your last, time area expansion would accelerate
with with spatial acceleration. This means the number of stacks/outcomes
become more numerous. With spatial collapse the time-area would decrease
(stacks/outcomes decrease). (??)
Received on Sat Apr 23 2005 - 00:29:39 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST