Leonard Susskind on The World As Hologram | TVO Docs

Others can hopefully chime in with more, but when I first was learning about it, my reaction to the word "hologram" was the same as your (1). My understanding is that when they say "hologram", they're simply meaning an n dimensional object that's encoded in n-1 dimensional space. If you're not familiar with the basics of the Holographic Principle, start here: [link] It's been a while since I've watched these, but IIRC these are very good videos to start with: - [this video] - [link] EDIT: Key clippings from the wikipedia article- " But Jacob Bekenstein noted that this leads to a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. If one throws a hot gas with entropy into a black hole, once it crosses the event horizon, the entropy would disappear. The random properties of the gas would no longer be seen once the black hole had absorbed the gas and settled down. The second law can only be salvaged if black holes are in fact random objects, with an enormous entropy whose increase is greater than the entropy carried by the gas. Bekenstein argued that black holes are maximum entropy objects—that they have more entropy than anything else in the same volume. In a sphere of radius R, the entropy in a relativistic gas increases as the energy increases. The only limit is gravitational; when there is too much energy the gas collapses into a black hole. Bekenstein used this to put an upper bound on the entropy in a region of space, and the bound was proportional to the area of the region. He conc

Since you asked for more depth, I'll focus on the (comparatively easier) task of giving some links to technical literature. First of all, if you already have a traditional QFT background, there's the two extremes of either just taking a simple toy example to play with [1] or a fairly rigorous well written lecture course [2]. For a more general physics/math background I'd recommend a slightly more pedagogical treatment [3], but it's still accurate to the subject matter and therefore contains graduate level mathematics. There's a lot more out there, but these are just some of the descriptions I've personally skimmed and found them to be well written and useful. On the other end of the scale, there's a huge amount of popular documentaries out there that purport to say something about AdS/CFT. Most of them either contain nonsense or don't say very much at all. I don't really know how useful the popular analogies really are, but in the spirit of making at least one recommendation that doesn't contain any math, Susskind's public lectures are easy to watch (here's one [4]), and Susskind is careful not to talk nonsense. There isn't really much on AdS/CFT that's in between graduate level mathematics and math-less popular stuff. The reason is that it's a fairly irreducible concept in the sense that you really need to understand what an anti-de Sitter space is and how conformal field theories work to see why there's a mathematical correspondence between them, and this isn't truly analog

>"In physics, a plasmon is a quantum of plasma oscillation . Just as light (an optical oscillation) consists of photons, the plasma oscillation consists of plasmons." PDS: Which means that an electron -- is a quantum of electron oscillation ... Which means that "oscillations" -- are the common denominator between electrons, photons, and plasmons (and probably any other thing in Physics with a "mon" -- after its name! <g>) Well, that, and they're "quantum"... Now, interestingly enough, when looking for the definition of "quantum", the first definition Google offers me is: Quantum: "a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents." (Google Search, 7/9/2021) Now, frequency is itself a proportion, a ratio, relative to TIME . Also, both "oscillations" and "frequency" are general terms for vibrations, although the definition of "frequency" is something like "vibrations per unit time", so it includes unit time -- whereas "oscillation" generally speaking, does not... Well, if all of these things mean the same thing in essence, then why can't we just "solve for X"? In other words, what's the common denominator -- between all of these apparently different things? Well, they're all just vibrations , at different rates of time, aren't they? Maybe a future physics -- will see all particles, waves, and fields -- as just vibrations... Vibrations inside of vibrations... Vibrations inside of other vibrations inside of still other -- vibr