Can someone explain this one to me?

This might be gibberish or interesting?

The absence of underdamped oscillations implies that a detection of “cosmological collider” oscillatory patterns in the non-Gaussian bispectrum would not only rule out single-field inflation, but also holographic inflation or any inflationary model based on the Hamilton–Jacobi equations.

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.191301

@wildgrass
Sounds like gibberish but I think they are talking about BB theory and inflation in the universe and maybe the acceleration of inflation we see starting a few billion years ago.

@sonhouse said
@wildgrass
Sounds like gibberish but I think they are talking about BB theory and inflation in the universe and maybe the acceleration of inflation we see starting a few billion years ago.

What about holographic inflation?

@wildgrass said
What about holographic inflation?

The term is explained in the introduction of the paper. I assume you are at a University, so you can download the pdf?

@ponderable said
The term is explained in the introduction of the paper. I assume you are at a University, so you can download the pdf?

Sure I can read. The paper introduced it but didn't explain it. It's fine if you didn't want to contribute.

@wildgrass said
Sure I can read. The paper introduced it but didn't explain it. It's fine if you didn't want to contribute.

Sorry if I came over condescendingly…

So in fact "holographic" refers to the fact that the infromation of one more dimesion is included in the minor Dimension. A holographic Picture Shows three dimensions, but is in two. There are some mathematical models which can describe what is Happening, given a correct set of conditions.

The Question is how do you Chose the correct set of representations (there are infinitely many) and the paper explores those mod3els and the appropriate conditions.


The Question would be of Course in what Niveau you want to talk. If you are in cosmology this ahs been trivial and we should have goe directly into the mathematical discussion. So if you know your Question very precise we can try to help as far as our understanding goes (I myself am no cosmologist or mathematician, so some of the finer Arguments are lost on me

@ponderable said
Sorry if I came over condescendingly…

So in fact "holographic" refers to the fact that the infromation of one more dimesion is included in the minor Dimension. A holographic Picture Shows three dimensions, but is in two. There are some mathematical models which can describe what is Happening, given a correct set of conditions.

The Question is how do you Chose the co ...[text shortened]... ing goes (I myself am no cosmologist or mathematician, so some of the finer Arguments are lost on me

Thanks. I was interested in it more in terms of the fundamental properties of the universe, not maths. Some flat earth folk are defending their position by saying that the universe is a hologram.

However, these authors are seemingly arguing that they've disproved the existence of a holographic universe in their model. I don't understand any of the terminology, so I am trying to get some laymans-terms clarity on the specifics. Your response was helpful.

@wildgrass said
Thanks. I was interested in it more in terms of the fundamental properties of the universe, not maths. Some flat earth folk are defending their position by saying that the universe is a hologram.

However, these authors are seemingly arguing that they've disproved the existence of a holographic universe in their model. I don't understand any of the terminology, so I am trying to get some laymans-terms clarity on the specifics. Your response was helpful.

I've got to draw your attention to the last sentence of their abstract:

Hence, future observations have the potential to exclude, at once, an entire class of inflationary theories, regardless of the details involved in their model building.

The relevant observations haven't been made yet. What they'd rule out would be models of cosmological inflation within holographic theories, rather than the holographic theories themselves. I don't think this can be seen as evidence against holographic cosmologies.

The holographic principle doesn't help the Flat Earthers at all. Their claim is that the earth is flat within the projection. Imagine a hologram of Terry Pratchet's Discworld and a hologram of the Earth. That the hologram is really two dimensional does not stop the Earth from being three dimensional within the projection, unlike Terry Pratchett's Discworld which is flat in the projection, but nevertheless three dimensional, and carried through space on the back of four elephants standing on the back of a turtle and is fictional. The Flat Earther's Earth is three dimensional, but flat, not the two dimensions of the holographic principle which is totally pancaked.

@DeepThought
Flat Earthers are seriously talking about hologram theory as regards to Earth? What idiot came up with THAT?

@deepthought said
I've got to draw your attention to the last sentence of their abstract:

Hence, future observations have the potential to exclude, at once, an entire class of inflationary theories, regardless of the details involved in their model building.

The relevant observations haven't been made yet. What they'd rule out would be models of cosmological inflation ...[text shortened]... imensional, but flat, not the two dimensions of the holographic principle which is totally pancaked.

Right. The flat earthers arguments typically just try to poke holes in everything we already know. So if the universe might or might not be a hologram, then who's to say for certain what shape the earth is?

@wildgrass
Well, try getting a near circular orbit for sats on a flat Earth......Also there are images of ALL of Antarctica in one shot AND there are a number of circumAntarctica cruises anyone with the bucks can book. The US navy did it in around 1947, with trouble for sure, bad weather and such.
I have worked up a number of counter arguments for the flat Earth set. My OWN arguments.

@sonhouse said
@wildgrass
Well, try getting a near circular orbit for sats on a flat Earth......Also there are images of ALL of Antarctica in one shot AND there are a number of circumAntarctica cruises anyone with the bucks can book. The US navy did it in around 1947, with trouble for sure, bad weather and such.
I have worked up a number of counter arguments for the flat Earth set. My OWN arguments.

The counterargument goes something like "If we can only predict what the global temperature will be 30 years from now to the 0.1 degree, but not the 0.001 degree, then science knows nothing and the Earth might as well be flat."

@wildgrass
I really LOVE their argument the moon is UNDER the sun at something like 50 miles up and the sun is about 3000 miles up spinning around the pizza Earth which is why we have day and night.
Of course ignoring the fact if that were the case there might be somewhat less light at night if anything since the light would still come in a straight line from this magical sun.....
One thing I throw at them: So on your flat Earth, fly around the equator, on the REAL earth you can fly over the equator without turning left or right, just fly in a straight line forever or till you run out of fuel. Try that on a flat Earth where the equator is a circle on the pizza pie Earth....