Am

I "2-D Hologram Projection" from a 3-D Tachyon Field?

Compactified into 1-D Existence by George Berkeley's Dreams?

By Floren Cabrera F. de Teresa

(In reply to Prof. George Shiber's questions.)

London, England on May 2016

How can that which is sensible be like that which is insensible? Can a real thing in itself invisible be
like a colour; or a real thing that is not audible, be like a sound? - George Berkeley.

Could it be that what we humans perceive to be a three-dimensional universe might just
be the image of a two-dimensional one, projected across a massive cosmic horizon? The
3-D nature of our world is essential to my own sense of "existence." Some String
theorists propose that incongruences between Einsteins theory of relativity and
quantum mechanics could be reconciled if every three-dimensional physical object like
myself, were a projection of tiny, subatomic bytes of information stored in a two-
dimensional mathematical construct. An important theoretical question is to determine
if there is any logical possibility for the force of gravity and one of the dimensions of
space, to be generated out of the interactions of particles and fields, theorized to exist in
a lower-dimensional realm? Quantum physicist and string theorist, Prof. George Shiber
asked a very interesting question: "Argument the logic you are using, and a proof, that:"

1.
I am not a 2-D Cartesian-hologram projected from a 3-D Tachyonic field
2.
(Existing) in George Berkeley's dream and
3.
Compactified into 1-Dimension!

First, let's break down the question into three steps:


(i) Ask whether or not, I am 2-dimensional "Cartesian Hologram" being

projected from a 3-dimensional Tachyon field? (ii) Second, work out if I am real

or imaginary? And such condition to be determined solely from the

philosophical perspective of the metaphysics of George Berkeley? Then (iii)

third, ask if then, and only then in such case, whether my "gestalt of being" is

"compactified" (according to 'String Theory') into a singular dimension?

Using deductive reasoning, if I were a 2-dimensional Cartesian hologram, such condition
would necessarily imply from my "frame of reference," that "my Universe" itself is
"holographic." Therefore, I must determine if my universe is holographic. Is my being as
well as the Universe, the result of information having been encoded on its boundary?

The holographic principle is a property of "String theory" and probably a property of
quantum gravity as well, which states that the description of a volume of space can be
thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region - preferably a "light-like boundary"
or a "gravitational horizon." An idea proposed by Gerard 't Hooft1, it was given a precise
string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind who combined his ideas with previous
ones of Hooft and Charles Thorn.2

1 https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0003004, The Holographic Principle by Gerard 't Hooft
2 http://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.825, "The Holographic Principle" by
Raphael Bousso Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 825 Published 5 August 2002

As pointed out by Raphael Bousso Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a
lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be
called a "holographic way." In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe
can be seen as two-dimensional information on the cosmological horizon, the event
horizon from which information may still be gathered and not lost due to the natural
limitations of space-time supporting a black hole, an observer and a given setting of
these specific elements, such that the three dimensions we observe are an effective
description only at macroscopic scales and at low energies. However, "cosmological
holography" has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the particle
horizon has a non-zero area and grows with time.

In order to determine this first possibility, let's use an experiment that was designed to
test the "holographic theory." In 2009 Hogan proposed a way to test the idea. "One way
the holographic principle might come about," he reasoned, "is if coordinates in different
directionsup-down, forward-backward, right-leftobey a quantum mechanical
uncertainty relationship a bit like the famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

This is a quantum principle, which states
that you cannot simultaneously know both
the position and momentum of a particle
such as an electron. If so, then it should be
impossible to precisely define a 3D position,
at least on very small scales of 10-35
meters." Hogan figured he could spot the
effect using L-shaped optical devices known
as interferometers, in which laser light is
used to measure the relative length of a
device's two arms to within a fraction of an
atom's width. If it were impossible to exactly define position, then "holographic noise"
should cause the output of an interferometer to jiggle at a frequency of millions of cycles
per second, he argued. If two interferometers were placed back to back, they would
sample distinct volumes of space-time, and their holographic noise would be
uncorrelated. But if they were nestled one inside the other, the interferometers would
probe the same volume of space-time
and the holographic noise would be
correlated. And if the interferometers
were big enough, the correlated
holographic noise should be
effectively amplified to observable
scales.

Hogan, Fermi lab experimenter Aaron
Chou, and colleagues have done the
measurement with interferometers
with 39-meter-long arms. However,
the experiment yielded no evidence of
"holographic noise."3


[3] http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.01216, Search for Space-Time Correlations from the Planck Scale with the
Fermi lab Holometer: Aaron S. Chou, Richard Gustafson, Craig Hogan, Brittany Kamai, Ohkyung Kwon,
Robert Lanza, Lee McCuller, Stephan S. Meyer, Jonathan Richardson, Chris Stoughton, Raymond Tomlin,
Samuel Waldman, Rainer Weiss


The holographic principle was first postulated over 20 years ago as a possible solution
to Stephen Hawkings famous information paradox. The paradox is essentially that
black holes appear to swallow information, which, according to quantum theory, is
impossible.) But while the principle was never mathematically formalized for black
holes, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena demonstrated several years later that
holography did indeed hold for a theoretical type of space called anti-de Sitter space.
Unlike the space in our universe, which is relatively flat on cosmic scales, anti-de Sitter
space as described by mathematicians curves inward like a saddle. In conclusion
regarding step one of our inquiry, we find that the "holographic universe" theory
requires an abstract mathematical "anti-de Sitter space" construct that is not in
agreement with astronomical observations about nature and shape of our observable
universe! It's an imaginary mathematical construct devoid of any "physical evidence."

Therefore, it follows that in order to consider me as a possible "2-D hologram," such
supposition would require proof that space is "curved like a saddle." However, there
have not been any observations supporting an anti-Ditter saddle shape of space.
Instruments like the CERN "Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS-02) - currently docked
to the ISS provide observational data about the fundamental shape and distribution of
matter (and anti-matter - none found so far) does not support such an "imaginary
mathematical shape" of space. In short, there is no evidence to assume its existence.

As the principle of a "holographic universe" (in any number of dimensions) requires as
an essential apriori condition, for space to be shaped as a closed loop-saddle, such which
runs contrary to empirical evidence and is therefore in realm of the abstract or purely
imaginary; albeit probably correct from a pure-math perspective, it does not weigh with
any relevance before all of the available experimental and astronomical observations.

Thus, either the universe is an anti-Ditter "saddle shaped" imaginary mathematical
model, or I am not a 2-dimensional holographic rendering projected from the boundary!

Now, onto the second part of first step, I ask if I am a 3D Tachyon-field rendering
of some boundary 2-dimensional image?

A Tachyonic field, or simply Tachyon, is a quantum field with an imaginary mass.

In string theory, Tachyons have the same interpretation as in quantum field theory.
However, string theory can, at least, in principle, not only describe the physics of
Tachyonic fields, but also predict whether such fields appear to be projecting my
existence from a 2-dimensional "universal boundary?

Although Tachyons (particles that move faster than light) are a purely hypothetical
concept, fields with imaginary mass have come to play an important role in modern
physics and are discussed in popular books on physics. Under no circumstances do any
excitations ever propagate faster than light in such theoriesthe presence or absence of
a Tachyonic mass has no effect whatsoever on the maximum velocity of signals (there is
no violation of causality).

Tachyonic fields indeed arise in many versions of string theory. Accordingly, the mass of
the particle can be deduced from the vibrations that the string exhibits; roughly
speaking, the mass depends upon the "note" which the string sounds. Tachyons
frequently appear in the spectrum of permissible string states, in the sense that some
states have negative mass-squared, and therefore, imaginary mass.

If the Tachyon appears as a vibrational mode of an open string, this signals instability of
the underlying D-brane system to which the string is attached. The system will then
decay to a state of closed strings and/or stable D-branes. If the Tachyon is a closed
string vibrational mode, this indicates instability in space-time itself. Generally, it is not
known (or theorized) what this system will decay to. However, if the closed string
tachyon is localized around a space-time singularity, the endpoint of the decay process
will often have the singularity resolved.

Bousso, t'Hooft, Susskind and Thorn posit that it must be possible in principle to verify
quantum-mechanical predictions exactly. This requires not only the existence of exact
observables but two additional postulates: a single observer within the universe can
access infinitely many identical experiments; and the outcome of each experiment must
be completely definite. In causal diamonds with finite surface area, holographic entropy
bounds imply that no exact observables exist, and both postulates fail: experiments
cannot be repeated infinitely many times.

Here I shall attempt to prove that even in the remotely imaginary case of a coincident D-
brane / anti-D-brane pair with a Tachyonic mode, is unstable and self-vanishes from
existence. Thus, I summon an argument by Ashoke Sen4 showing that at the classical
minimum of the Tachyonic potential the negative energy density associated with the
potential exactly cancels the sum of the tension of the brane and the anti-brane, thereby
giving a configuration of zero energy density and restoring space-time super-symmetry:

"Let us express an original system of a D2-brane and an anti-D2-brane, wrapped on a
torus T^2 of area 4pi(R1R2) with one unit of magnetic flux on each of the branes.
Therefore (based on M = 2/g) we see that at the minimum of the Tachyon potential, the
energy unit area of the brane - anti-brane system is given by:




M/ 4pi(R1R2) = 1 / 2pi^2(R1R2)

If we take the limit R1,R2


The energy per unit area goes to zero. In this limit, the magnetic field strength on the
brane and the anti-brane goes to zero and we recover the physics of the brane - anti-
brane system without any magnetic flux. Therefore, it is deduced (at the classical
minimum of potential) energy per unit area of the brane - anti-brane system vanishes."

The question is really whether I have an "imaginary mass?" Which tenet really means to
define if such system is possible or if it becomes unstable. The zero value field is at a
local maximum rather than a local minimum of its potential energy, much like a ball at
the top of a hill. A very small impulse (which will always happen due to quantum
fluctuations) will lead the field to roll down with exponentially increasing amplitudes
toward the local minimum.

In this way, tachyon condensation drives a physical system that has reached a local limit
and might be expected to produce physical tachyons, to an alternate stable state where
no physical tachyons exist. Once the Tachyonic field reaches the minimum of the
potential, its quanta are not tachyons any more but rather are ordinary particles with a
positive mass-squared, such as the Higgs boson; and thus, negating such possibility.

4 http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9805170v3 "Tachyon Condensation on the Brane Anti-brane System"

by Ashoke Sen, revised May 1998 (perhaps theory has made significant advances ever since?)

Now, let's try to use a Wick rotation formulation to try to find a solution to my
existential and mathematical problem. Can I deduce my 3-Dimensional (actually 4-
Dimensional) existence in Minkowski space from a solution to a related problem in
Euclidean space by means of a transformation that substitutes an imaginary construct of
2-dimensions for my presumed real number of 3-Dimensions as the variable? Wick
rotation is motivated by the observation that the Minkowski metric in natural units
(with (1, +1, +1, +1) convention for the metric tensor)



And the four-dimensional Euclidean metric

Let's assume that the shape of my body (for simplicity) is a curve y(x). Then my body is
in equilibrium when the energy associated with my shape is at a critical point (an
extreme); this critical point is typically a minimum, so this idea is usually called "the
principle of least energy". To compute the energy, we integrate over the energy density
at each point:


Where k is my "physical body" constant and V (y(x)) is my "real" gravitational potential.
The corresponding dynamics problem is that of calculating the result of my body
jumping upwards. The path my physical body follows is a critical point (extreme) of the
action. Action is the integral of the Lagrangian; as before, this critical point is typically a
minimum, so this is called the "principle of least action":

We get the solution to the dynamics problem (up to a factor of i) from the statics
problem by Wick rotation, replacing y(x) by y(it) and my "real body's flexibility"
constant k by the mass of my "real persona" with real mass existing in a physical,
observable Universe, referred below as m - and therefore concluding that I do exist,
since I have mass which is stable and has a demonstrable energy value when in motion!

Let's turn now to the second step and ask the metaphysical question as to whether
my existence is imaginary or real? Or, in terms of George Berkeleys metaphysics,
am I an "Idea" or a "Spirit"?

In the first part of our discussion, we find that both the "holographic universe" as well as
the existence of Tachyon fields are purely imaginary, mathematical constructs that
albeit very elegant and symmetrical, do not have any plausible basis on our observations
of the physical universe. Nor are they fully congruent and stable in logical and energy
terms, since they are based on constructions of space-time that may have resulted only
from theoretical anomalies in reconciling Relativity with Quantum Mechanics.
"George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, was one of the great philosophers of the early modern
period. He was a brilliant critic of his predecessors, particularly Descartes, Malebranche,
and Locke. He was a talented metaphysician famous for defending idealism, that is, the
view that reality consists exclusively of minds and their ideas." 5
Perhaps the most obvious objection to idealism is that it makes real things no different
from imaginary onesboth seem fleeting figments of our own minds, rather than the
solid objects of the materialists. Berkeley replies that the distinction between real things
and chimeras retains its full force on his view.
Berkeley's Master Argument:

"There are only two kinds of things: spirits and ideas. Spirits are simple, active beings,
which produce and perceive ideas; ideas are passive beings that are produced and
perceived."6

Therefore, according to Berkeley, I am either an "Idea" or a "Spirit."

" I am content to put the whole upon this issue; if you can but conceive it possible for one
extended moveable substance, or in general, for any one idea or any thing like an idea, to
exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving it, I shall readily give up the cause.

But say you, surely there is nothing easier than to imagine trees, for instance, in a park, or
books existing in a closet, and no body by to perceive them. I answer, you may so, there is
no difficulty in it: but what is all this, I beseech you, more than framing in your mind
certain ideas which you call books and trees, and at the same time omitting to frame the
idea of any one that may perceive them? But do not you your self perceive or think of them
all the while?

This therefore is nothing to the purpose: it only shows you have the power of imagining or
forming ideas in your mind; but it doth not shew that you can conceive it possible, the
objects of your thought may exist without the mind: to make out this, it is necessary that
you conceive them existing unconceived or unthought of, which is a manifest repugnancy.
When we do our utmost to conceive the existence of external bodies, we are all the while
only contemplating our own ideas. But the mind taking no notice of itself, is deluded to
think it can and doth conceive bodies existing unthought-of of or without the mind; though
at the same time they are apprehended by or exist in it self." 7

5 Note: George Berkeley references and quotes are used under commons rights, directly from:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/

6 Bettcher T.M. Berkeley: A Guide for the Perplexed. Continuum Publishing, 2008. p. 14.
7 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/

"Berkeley's ontology is not exhausted by the ideal, however. In addition to perceived

things (ideas), he posits perceivers, i.e., minds or spirits, as he often terms them. Spirits,
he emphasizes, are totally different in kind from ideas, for they are active where ideas
are passive. This suggests that Berkeley has replaced one kind of dualism, of mind and
matter, with another kind of dualism, of mind and idea. There is something to this point,
given Berkeley's refusal to elaborate upon the relation between active minds and
passive ideas." 8
"Hence, human knowledge is reduced to two elements: that of spirits and of ideas
(Principles #86). In contrast to ideas, a spirit cannot be perceived. A person's spirit,
which perceives ideas, is to be comprehended intuitively by inward feeling or reflection
(Principles #89). For Berkeley, we have no direct 'idea' of spirits, albeit we have good
reason to believe in the existence of other spirits, for their existence explains the
purposeful regularities we find in experience.[14] ("It is plain that we cannot know the
existence of other spirits otherwise than by their operations, or the ideas by them
excited in us", Dialogues #145). This is the solution that Berkeley offers to the problem
of other minds. Finally, the order and purposefulness of the whole of our experience of
the world and especially of nature overwhelms us into believing in the existence of an
extremely powerful and intelligent spirit that causes that order. According to Berkeley,
reflection on the attributes of that external spirit leads us to identify it with God. Thus a
material thing such as an apple consists of a collection of ideas (shape, color, taste,
physical properties, etc.) that are caused in the spirits of humans by the spirit of God."9
"It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains,
rivers, and in a word all sensible objects have an existence natural or real, distinct from
their being perceived by the understanding. But with how great an assurance and
acquiescence so ever this principle may be entertained in the world; yet whoever shall
find in his heart to call it in question, may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve a
manifest contradiction. For what are the fore mentioned objects but the things we
perceive by sense, and what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations; and is
it not plainly repugnant that any one of these or any combination of them should exist
unperceived?"10

Now, in terms of scientific thought, Berkeley was an 18th century iconoclast who openly
questioned new scientific ideas and denied their then possible logical existence and
proof: "Berkeley argued that forces and gravity, as defined by Newton, constituted
"occult qualities" that "expressed nothing distinctly". He held that those who posited
"something unknown in a body of which they have no idea and which they call the
principle of motion, are in fact simply stating that the principle of motion is unknown."
Therefore, those who "affirm that active force, action, and the principle of motion are
really in bodies are adopting an opinion not based on experience."[21] Forces and
gravity existed nowhere in the phenomenal world. On the other hand, if they resided in
the category of "soul" or "incorporeal thing", they "do not properly belong to physics" as
a matter. Berkeley thus concluded that forces lay beyond any kind of empirical
observation and could not be a part of proper science."11

8 Ibid
9 Ibid

10 Ibid
11 Ditto

Berkeley proposed his theory of signs as a means to explain motion and matter without
reference to the "occult qualities" of force and gravity."12 However, Berkeley recognizes
that these philosophers have an obvious response available to this argument. This
response blocks Berkeley's inference to (3) by distinguishing two sorts of perception,
mediate and immediate.
Berkeley presents here the following argument (see Winkler 1989, 138):
(1) We perceive ordinary objects (houses, mountains, etc.).
(2) We perceive only ideas.
Therefore (3) Ordinary objects are ideas.
Thus, premises (1) and (2) are replaced by the claims that (1) we immediately perceive
ordinary objects, while (2) we (internally) perceive only ideas.
From these claims, of course, no idealist conclusion follows. The response reflects a
representationalist theory of perception, according to which we indirectly perceive
material things, by directly (immediately) perceiving ideas, which are mind-dependent
items. The ideas represent external material objects, and thereby allow us to perceive
them: "We feel it [mind] as a faculty of altering both our own state and that of other
things, and that is properly called vital, and puts a wide distinction between soul and
bodies."13
Therefore, of the previous three postulates, i.e. (i) my being a 2-D holographic
projection; (ii) being projected from a 3-D Tachyon field and lastly (iii) "existing in a
George Berkeley dream"... it is very interesting to note that it is this last postulate which
is the hardest to strictly disprove ontologically!

I posit that the nature of the "human mind" is such that for my "own consciousness" it is
sometimes difficult to distinguish the qualities of reality versus those presented in my
mind as a very vivid and realistic "dream!"

However and luckily for me, since I posit the first two postulates have been proven to be
"imaginary constructs" then we have to conclude that "any dream" by George Berkeley
regarding my "state of existence" as determined by the prior two constraints, must be a
dream about "imaginary objects" which are perceived by the mind of the observer (in
this hypothetical case, the mind of the 18th century Bishop of Cloyne, Bishop Berkeley.

Concluding, that whatever the consequences of the dreams by George Berkeley, these
are immaterial and irrelevant to the final state of existence, of my very own condition of
existing as a real being! This conclusion also drawn from the empirical observation that
George Berkeley has been dead for over 263 years and despite this proven and evident
fact, I am here thinking and writing all the same, and with a lot of spirit!

Therefore, I am not an Idea, but I am an existing Spirit, indeed!

12 Downing, Lisa. Berkeley's Case Against Realism About Dynamics. In Robert G. Muehlmann (ed.),
Berkeley's Metaphysics: Structural, Interpretive, and Critical Essays. The Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1995
13 Downing, Lisa, "George Berkeley", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward
N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/berkeley/>.

At last we come to the last postulate, as to whether the resulting "gestalt" of my

existence, has been "compactified" into one dimension?
In physics, compactification means changing a theory with respect to one of its space-
time dimensions. Instead of having a theory with this dimension being infinite, one
changes the theory so that this dimension has a finite length, and may also be periodic.
Compactification plays an important part in thermal field theory where one compactifies
time, in string theory where one compactifies the extra dimensions of the theory, and in
two- or one-dimensional solid state physics, where one considers a system which is
limited in one of the three usual spatial dimensions. At the limit where the size of the
compact dimension goes to zero, no fields depend on this extra dimension, and the
theory is dimensionally reduced.
In string theory, compactification is a generalization of KaluzaKlein theory. It tries to
conciliate the gap between the conceptions of our universe based on its four observable
dimensions with the ten, eleven, or twenty-six dimensions that theoretical equations
lead us to suppose the universe is made with. For this purpose it is assumed the extra
dimensions are "wrapped" up on themselves, or "curled" up on CalabiYau spaces, or on
orbifolds. Models in which the compact directions support fluxes are known as flux
compactifications. A field called dilaton can describe the coupling constant of string
theory, which determines the probability of strings to split and reconnect. This in turn
can be described as the size of an extra (eleventh) dimension that is compact. In this
way, the ten-dimensional type IIA string theory can be described as the compactification
of M-theory in eleven dimensions. Furthermore, different versions of string theory are
related by different compactifications in a procedure known as T-duality.

However, in the first postulate of this paper, it has been show"... one unit of magnetic
flux on a 2-D brane -anti 2-D-brane, wrapped on a torus T^2 of area 4pi(R1R2) results in
the energy per unit area going to zero. Therefore, under the proposed imaginary
construct of this paper, under the first tenet, the magnetic field strength on the brane
and the anti-brane goes to zero and we recover the physics of the brane - anti-brane
system without any magnetic flux. Therefore, it is deduced (at the classical minimum of
potential) energy per unit area of the brane - anti-brane system vanishes."

And since the brane-anti-brane system "vanishes" there is really nothing material,
physical, even theoretical left to be "compactified" into a single-dimension! There are no
conditions where my "gestalt" system of my own being could be interpreted as the
construction of a 4-D state, calculated by a "Wick rotation" to be a 3-D Tachyon field
projection onto a "2-D holographic" Universe.

Conclusion

Based on the arguments of proof postulated herein, including: direct proof,
mathematical induction, contraposition, contradiction and ultimately, proof by
"exhaustion" (no pun intended), in all probability and in congruence with the empirical
evidence and grounded on the fact that I am indeed thinking at this very moment,
despite the fact that George Berkeley has been dead for over 263 years(!) is proof
positive that:

I am NOT a 2-D Hologram Projection" from a 3-D Tachyon Field?
And I have NOT been "Compactified" into 1-D Existence by George Berkeley's Dreams.

Furthermore, as an after-thought it is interesting to point out that:

1.
The cosmological constant turns out to be always negative, which may be (for

the moment) a difficult problem for String Theory (and for Quantum Physics).

This creates the need to "insert" a constant to Langrangian equations in order

to cancel out the "cosmological constant."

2.
It is at the moment "unknown" what "mechanism" causes the cosmological

constant, as well as what it is also unknow what are the "causes" behind the

"alpha" or the fine structure coupling constant.

3.
The cause and laws that give rise to the Fundamental Constants are

unknown and nothing so far in Quantum Physics has been able to provide such

laws that give origin to the observed critical values of some key constants:

Gravitational constant

G
Speed of light


c
Planck's Constant


h
9 Yukuwa couplings for

quarks and leptons (rest mass)
2 parameters for Higgs field
4 parameters for quark mixing
3 coupling constants for gauge groups

SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) or Weinberg Angle
Phase for the QCD Vacuum






There was a young man who said God,
must find it exceedingly odd
when he finds that the tree
continues to be
when no ones about in the Quad.

Dear Sir,

Your astonishment's odd
I'm always about in the Quad
and that's why the tree
continues to be.

Since observed by,

Yours faithfully, God






Appendix: Current Progress in resolving Fundamental Constants of the Universe