3 replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
source | link

For example in the discussions herehere and herehere there are comments by Ron Maimon:

Your complaint about locality would be more serious if holography didn't show the way--- the CFT in AdS/CFT produces local AdS physics, even though the description is completely and ridiculously nonlocal

and

Once you realize that gravity is defined far away on a holographic screen, the idea of hidden variables becomes more plausible, because the physics of gravity is nonlocal in a way that suggests it might fix quantum mechanics

How is gravity nonlocal? I thought GR was explicitly Lorentz Invariant? Or are these statements more philosophical (something I would not expect from Ron), ie, just a statement that the boundary is "far away" and isomorphic to the interior...


EDIT:

Ron gave an answer that is very difficult for me to parse. Can someone who is a bit more pedagogically inclined interpret what he says? I asked him to clarify various points in the comments, with little luck. I'm not even sure how he is defining 'locality':

The nonlocality of gravity doesn't mean that Lorentz invariance is broken, Lorentz invariance and locality are separate concepts. It just means that to define the state of the universe at a certain point, you need to know what is going on everywhere, the state space isn't decomposing into a basis of local operators.

I do not see how this does not violate Lorentz invariance. If your state at time t depends on parts of the universe outside your light cone, this is clearly a-causal.

"Locality" is a bit of an overloaded term, and for this discussion I will assume that it means there are bosonic operators at every point which commute at spacelike separation (Bosonic fields and bilinears in Fermi fields). This means that that the orthogonal basis states at one time are all possible values of the bosonic field states on a spacelike hypersurface, and over Fermi Grassman variables if you want to have fermions.

I do not understand this definition, and frankly it seems unnecessarily complicated and non-transparent. Is this a different definition of 'locality' compared to what is used, for example, in Bell's famous paper?

For example in the discussions here and here there are comments by Ron Maimon:

Your complaint about locality would be more serious if holography didn't show the way--- the CFT in AdS/CFT produces local AdS physics, even though the description is completely and ridiculously nonlocal

and

Once you realize that gravity is defined far away on a holographic screen, the idea of hidden variables becomes more plausible, because the physics of gravity is nonlocal in a way that suggests it might fix quantum mechanics

How is gravity nonlocal? I thought GR was explicitly Lorentz Invariant? Or are these statements more philosophical (something I would not expect from Ron), ie, just a statement that the boundary is "far away" and isomorphic to the interior...


EDIT:

Ron gave an answer that is very difficult for me to parse. Can someone who is a bit more pedagogically inclined interpret what he says? I asked him to clarify various points in the comments, with little luck. I'm not even sure how he is defining 'locality':

The nonlocality of gravity doesn't mean that Lorentz invariance is broken, Lorentz invariance and locality are separate concepts. It just means that to define the state of the universe at a certain point, you need to know what is going on everywhere, the state space isn't decomposing into a basis of local operators.

I do not see how this does not violate Lorentz invariance. If your state at time t depends on parts of the universe outside your light cone, this is clearly a-causal.

"Locality" is a bit of an overloaded term, and for this discussion I will assume that it means there are bosonic operators at every point which commute at spacelike separation (Bosonic fields and bilinears in Fermi fields). This means that that the orthogonal basis states at one time are all possible values of the bosonic field states on a spacelike hypersurface, and over Fermi Grassman variables if you want to have fermions.

I do not understand this definition, and frankly it seems unnecessarily complicated and non-transparent. Is this a different definition of 'locality' compared to what is used, for example, in Bell's famous paper?

For example in the discussions here and here there are comments by Ron Maimon:

Your complaint about locality would be more serious if holography didn't show the way--- the CFT in AdS/CFT produces local AdS physics, even though the description is completely and ridiculously nonlocal

and

Once you realize that gravity is defined far away on a holographic screen, the idea of hidden variables becomes more plausible, because the physics of gravity is nonlocal in a way that suggests it might fix quantum mechanics

How is gravity nonlocal? I thought GR was explicitly Lorentz Invariant? Or are these statements more philosophical (something I would not expect from Ron), ie, just a statement that the boundary is "far away" and isomorphic to the interior...


EDIT:

Ron gave an answer that is very difficult for me to parse. Can someone who is a bit more pedagogically inclined interpret what he says? I asked him to clarify various points in the comments, with little luck. I'm not even sure how he is defining 'locality':

The nonlocality of gravity doesn't mean that Lorentz invariance is broken, Lorentz invariance and locality are separate concepts. It just means that to define the state of the universe at a certain point, you need to know what is going on everywhere, the state space isn't decomposing into a basis of local operators.

I do not see how this does not violate Lorentz invariance. If your state at time t depends on parts of the universe outside your light cone, this is clearly a-causal.

"Locality" is a bit of an overloaded term, and for this discussion I will assume that it means there are bosonic operators at every point which commute at spacelike separation (Bosonic fields and bilinears in Fermi fields). This means that that the orthogonal basis states at one time are all possible values of the bosonic field states on a spacelike hypersurface, and over Fermi Grassman variables if you want to have fermions.

I do not understand this definition, and frankly it seems unnecessarily complicated and non-transparent. Is this a different definition of 'locality' compared to what is used, for example, in Bell's famous paper?

2 added 1430 characters in body
source | link

For example in the discussions here and here there are comments by Ron Maimon:

Your complaint about locality would be more serious if holography didn't show the way--- the CFT in AdS/CFT produces local AdS physics, even though the description is completely and ridiculously nonlocal

and

Once you realize that gravity is defined far away on a holographic screen, the idea of hidden variables becomes more plausible, because the physics of gravity is nonlocal in a way that suggests it might fix quantum mechanics

How is gravity nonlocal? I thought GR was explicitly Lorentz Invariant? Or are these statements more philosophical (something I would not expect from Ron), ie, just a statement that the boundary is "far away" and isomorphic to the interior...


EDIT:

Ron gave an answer that is very difficult for me to parse. Can someone who is a bit more pedagogically inclined interpret what he says? I asked him to clarify various points in the comments, with little luck. I'm not even sure how he is defining 'locality':

The nonlocality of gravity doesn't mean that Lorentz invariance is broken, Lorentz invariance and locality are separate concepts. It just means that to define the state of the universe at a certain point, you need to know what is going on everywhere, the state space isn't decomposing into a basis of local operators.

I do not see how this does not violate Lorentz invariance. If your state at time t depends on parts of the universe outside your light cone, this is clearly a-causal.

"Locality" is a bit of an overloaded term, and for this discussion I will assume that it means there are bosonic operators at every point which commute at spacelike separation (Bosonic fields and bilinears in Fermi fields). This means that that the orthogonal basis states at one time are all possible values of the bosonic field states on a spacelike hypersurface, and over Fermi Grassman variables if you want to have fermions.

I do not understand this definition, and frankly it seems unnecessarily complicated and non-transparent. Is this a different definition of 'locality' compared to what is used, for example, in Bell's famous paper?

For example in the discussions here and here there are comments by Ron Maimon:

Your complaint about locality would be more serious if holography didn't show the way--- the CFT in AdS/CFT produces local AdS physics, even though the description is completely and ridiculously nonlocal

and

Once you realize that gravity is defined far away on a holographic screen, the idea of hidden variables becomes more plausible, because the physics of gravity is nonlocal in a way that suggests it might fix quantum mechanics

How is gravity nonlocal? I thought GR was explicitly Lorentz Invariant? Or are these statements more philosophical (something I would not expect from Ron), ie, just a statement that the boundary is "far away" and isomorphic to the interior...

For example in the discussions here and here there are comments by Ron Maimon:

Your complaint about locality would be more serious if holography didn't show the way--- the CFT in AdS/CFT produces local AdS physics, even though the description is completely and ridiculously nonlocal

and

Once you realize that gravity is defined far away on a holographic screen, the idea of hidden variables becomes more plausible, because the physics of gravity is nonlocal in a way that suggests it might fix quantum mechanics

How is gravity nonlocal? I thought GR was explicitly Lorentz Invariant? Or are these statements more philosophical (something I would not expect from Ron), ie, just a statement that the boundary is "far away" and isomorphic to the interior...


EDIT:

Ron gave an answer that is very difficult for me to parse. Can someone who is a bit more pedagogically inclined interpret what he says? I asked him to clarify various points in the comments, with little luck. I'm not even sure how he is defining 'locality':

The nonlocality of gravity doesn't mean that Lorentz invariance is broken, Lorentz invariance and locality are separate concepts. It just means that to define the state of the universe at a certain point, you need to know what is going on everywhere, the state space isn't decomposing into a basis of local operators.

I do not see how this does not violate Lorentz invariance. If your state at time t depends on parts of the universe outside your light cone, this is clearly a-causal.

"Locality" is a bit of an overloaded term, and for this discussion I will assume that it means there are bosonic operators at every point which commute at spacelike separation (Bosonic fields and bilinears in Fermi fields). This means that that the orthogonal basis states at one time are all possible values of the bosonic field states on a spacelike hypersurface, and over Fermi Grassman variables if you want to have fermions.

I do not understand this definition, and frankly it seems unnecessarily complicated and non-transparent. Is this a different definition of 'locality' compared to what is used, for example, in Bell's famous paper?

    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/237020377581244416
1
source | link

How does the holographic principle imply nonlocality?

For example in the discussions here and here there are comments by Ron Maimon:

Your complaint about locality would be more serious if holography didn't show the way--- the CFT in AdS/CFT produces local AdS physics, even though the description is completely and ridiculously nonlocal

and

Once you realize that gravity is defined far away on a holographic screen, the idea of hidden variables becomes more plausible, because the physics of gravity is nonlocal in a way that suggests it might fix quantum mechanics

How is gravity nonlocal? I thought GR was explicitly Lorentz Invariant? Or are these statements more philosophical (something I would not expect from Ron), ie, just a statement that the boundary is "far away" and isomorphic to the interior...