The more I try to comprehend Pasterskis work the more I have to admit I don't understand it. I like Penrose and Gerard ’t Hooft, they make sense and can make their work visible in a understandable way. Pasterkis work is uncomprehendable. I don't see what the big idea is, what the advantage is, what implications for thecomposition of the world or its beginning are. Can anyone put it in words for mortals?
>celestial holographySo basically le spacetime (flat minkowski spacetime it seems, not GR spacetime) is equivalent to a 2D hologram. The advantage appears to be that you can use conformal field theory on some amplitudes or whatever in the hologram. But it's probably only for special cases from what I can see, really I have no idea. So basically you're bringing the "magic" of CFT to spacetime. Or are you dragging CFT to spacetime where you can get a good look at it? I don't know or really care lol.
I don't even understand the geometry of such a thing. Its a projection of spacetime on the surface of a sphere, but this surface is infinitely far away. How is it a surface then? Does it even matter? Or is it just a tool?
>>16985552>Its a projection of spacetimeProbably not a projection, that would imply loss of information, but idk.>but this surface is infinitely far away.idk lol> How is it a surface then?It's 2d. Or is it? More generally a surface is 1D less than some embedding space.The point is probably to move things from one space to another so you can hopefully maybe do something with them you couldn't do otherwise. It's fairly abstract so it's not going to be compelling like Penrose talking his shit, unless you spend months reading a CFT textbook first perhaps.
>>16985534
>>16985534It's "just" a generalization of "looking means looking into the past".
>holographNot her idea but Maldacena's
>>16985534>I like Penrose and Gerard ’t Hooft, they make sense and can make their work visible in a understandable way.Because Penrose and 't Hooft don't work on String theory or any of these speculative Physics fields. Understand the difference between working within proposed theories of quantum gravity and working within theories confirmed by experiment. The latter is closer in nature to the work of "classical" (really pre 1970s) physics, and I would argue is more difficult to do.
