SifFi, Space, And Quantum Entanglement

A recent Facebook conversation.

ME: Bobby. Just finished watching an episode of The Orville for the first time. Apparently its a very popular show. I didn't like it.

It is listed as a comedy, so perhaps it's not surprising that as a drama it's a total failure. The characters display as much depth and rich color as a set of shadow puppets. Since this includes even the characters introduced as dramatic elements only for a single show, it's not simply a lack of character development. It's a lack of character.

As for comedy… I didn't find much. During the entire show I did smile very briefly at one moment. That's it.

As for the program's setting, it would work as a spoof of Star Trek since it's almost entirely an imitation thereof, right down to the color-coded tunics and replicators, but it manifests as nothing but a badly planned rip off.

Ever seen it? I'm curious as to your responses.

C: No and it doesn't sound like something I would want to see.

ME: C, I would say don't waste your time but there are an awful lot of people who think it's wonderful.

BOBBY: Glad to hear your opinion. I suspected a repelling incongruence between Seth MacFarlane's flippant cynnicism and the bright-eyed promise of progress I like to get from the Star Trek universe that I've avoided the show altogether.

ME: You and me both. But I decided I ought to give it a least one look.

BOBBY: Have you checked out Bandersnatch yet?

ME: That I haven't. Dark Mirror was just a bit too dark for me. Well-made shows, you understand, but I found them depressing so I don't generally watch. I'm willing to give Bandersnatch a try. Are you recommending it or just wondering?

ME: I saw the most amazing show on YouTube today. It was a lengthy discussion of quantum physics. The panel was emceed by Brian Green and included none other than Gerard t' Hooft!! I was really shocked to see him sitting there. (He had some really great insights but he did stand firmly in the "hidden variables" school.)
The show was interesting but what absolutely stunned me was when one of the panelists, for the first time I could ever even imagine such a thing, actually exlained his theory of how space itself is generated. I mean it isn't as if I haven't asked, "Where does space come from?" Who hasn't? But I never thought anyone would have an answer!

His explanation isn't one I want to try to dictate out right now, But it is based on the holographic principle as in the concept that three dimensional reality is actually projected by two dimensional Holographic images on the event horizon surrounding our universe.

He made it convincing.

Now if only someone would do the same thing for time.

ME: Hey, did you ever check out The Expanse?

A FEW DAYS LATER:

Found out more about this from an article. The theory does cover not only space, but also time, and even to some extent, gravity. It also has strong applications for black holes because a black hole would be the result of when the whole system just falls apart. Oddly enough the whole theory began with looking into quantum systems and how they self correct with hopes that it could be applied to quantum computing.

The Many Hypotheses Hypothesis

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/large-hadron-collider-might-reveal-extra-dimensions

I have never liked Everett's many worlds hypothesis for both emotional and rational reasons, but the extra dimensions necessary for string theory?  We can hope!  Mini black holes, however, remain disturbing in spite of the assurances that they are too hot and unstable to last long enough to feed and become a threat.  

I wonder if we could look for them in cosmic ray collisions with our upper atmosphere.  The universe is a bigger and more powerful accelerator than any we will ever build, and it's already operating at no cost to us.

Black holes, holographic gravity, and dirty jokes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/black-holes-big-bang-brian-greene_n_1625330.html

As I read the comments following the video on the above link regarding black holes and holographic gravity, I was struck by two facts.  First, no one gave me a hint as to what  could induce a two dimensional set of data smeared across a theoretical, event horizon-like limit to our universe to project that data inward and thus create the reality we all experience and of which we are a part.  Second, I was disappointed in the number of adolescent sexual giggle fests over the term, " black hole".  

I posted the following comments:

  In the flood of comments, may I interject a question?  Assuming that holographic gravity is an accurate model of reality, what takes the place of the photons which cause the two dimentional pattern to project a three dimentional image?  I am not opposed to the concept of our perceived reality being such a projection, but can't conceive of an answer for this element of the picture.

Oh, and as a matter of historical interest, Russian physicists were appalled at the adoption of the term, "black hole" as it actually did have a pre-existing crude sexual meaning in their language.

Does anyone out there have an answer to my question?