6 ms·

Honestly I don't think I have single great article, though some Quanta ones are ok, and the Wikipedia article is okay. The best thing I can recommend is what I

Honestly I don't think I have single great article, though some Quanta ones are ok, and the Wikipedia article is okay. The best thing I can recommend is what I did, which is ask Claude about the significance of (1) quantum computing error correction, and (2) error correction in black hole holography and research convergence between the two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-space-and-time-could-be-a-quantum-error-correcting-code-20190103/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-space-and-time-could-be-a... Edit: this whole article, despite it's boring title and hook, is maybe the best discussion of holography as a recent and active research frontier. https://www.quantamagazine.org/if-the-universe-is-a-hologram-this-long-forgotten-math-could-decode-it-20240925/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/if-the-universe-is-a-hologram...

Kotlopou 13d ago
(not the person you replied to) I have no idea what you're hoping the contribution would be. The AdS/CFT correspondence is 29 years old by now and it doesn't seem to apply to our spacetime, where the cosmological constant seems to be positive rather than negative. There are some puzzling consequences of the holographic principle in that scenario as well (https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013 https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013), but the linked articles don't talk about them? Quanta articles are written for people with no background whatsoever, which makes them impenetrable if you have a bit of background and are trying to figure out what they're about. I don't know how good Claude is compared to that -- whenever I try asking any LLM about something I don't understand, it produces a wall of text, I have no idea whether it's correct or relevant, and I look for a textbook or review paper instead.
- glenstein 12d ago
  The wiki article has a section on 'Energy, matter, and information equivalence', the first Quanta article is almost entirely about the 'deep connection between quantum error correction and the nature of space, time and gravity' and about bringing the same information centric approach from AdS to our spacetime. The second Quanta article is explicitly about about bringing a holographic approach to our non AdS spacetime and cites an Ed Witten paper as the cornerstone of that approach (which one perhaps overly excited MIT physicist describes as 'revolutionary'). AdS is 'old' but the articles aren't suggesting it is new, and our spacetime is not AdS and the articles don't suggest otherwise. The point is that there's a search for a way to fit the holographic approach to our spacetime that's inspired by how AdS helps make sense of black holes. Quanta writing being directed at a lay audience ought to be a good thing, not a bad thing and they do link to papers if that's your jam. Whether or not your LLM of choice produces indecipherable walls of text, and whether it ties those to sufficiently satisfying citations, I think is just a matter of how you go about the prompting.
  - Kotlopou 12d ago
    You're right, I'm prejudiced against Quanta (often IMO they look for a clean narrative to the point of misleading and/or rely too much on metaphors) and was probably too harsh here. Sorry! That said, I don't like them because their articles never leave me feeling like I understood something. They never go in an order of simple to complex and constantly try to hook you. (A positive example to contrast would be 3blue1brown, who manages to both hook you and make you understand, even with rather little background.) Could you share a link to your Claude conversation? If this is a prompting issue, I would be interested in seeing what's possible. Thanks!

Kotlopou 13d ago

(not the person you replied to) I have no idea what you're hoping the contribution would be. The AdS/CFT correspondence is 29 years old by now and it doesn't seem to apply to our spacetime, where the cosmological constant seems to be positive rather than negative. There are some puzzling consequences of the holographic principle in that scenario as well (https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013 https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013), but the linked articles don't talk about them? Quanta articles are written for people with no background whatsoever, which makes them impenetrable if you have a bit of background and are trying to figure out what they're about. I don't know how good Claude is compared to that -- whenever I try asking any LLM about something I don't understand, it produces a wall of text, I have no idea whether it's correct or relevant, and I look for a textbook or review paper instead.

glenstein 12d ago
The wiki article has a section on 'Energy, matter, and information equivalence', the first Quanta article is almost entirely about the 'deep connection between quantum error correction and the nature of space, time and gravity' and about bringing the same information centric approach from AdS to our spacetime. The second Quanta article is explicitly about about bringing a holographic approach to our non AdS spacetime and cites an Ed Witten paper as the cornerstone of that approach (which one perhaps overly excited MIT physicist describes as 'revolutionary'). AdS is 'old' but the articles aren't suggesting it is new, and our spacetime is not AdS and the articles don't suggest otherwise. The point is that there's a search for a way to fit the holographic approach to our spacetime that's inspired by how AdS helps make sense of black holes. Quanta writing being directed at a lay audience ought to be a good thing, not a bad thing and they do link to papers if that's your jam. Whether or not your LLM of choice produces indecipherable walls of text, and whether it ties those to sufficiently satisfying citations, I think is just a matter of how you go about the prompting.
- Kotlopou 12d ago
  You're right, I'm prejudiced against Quanta (often IMO they look for a clean narrative to the point of misleading and/or rely too much on metaphors) and was probably too harsh here. Sorry! That said, I don't like them because their articles never leave me feeling like I understood something. They never go in an order of simple to complex and constantly try to hook you. (A positive example to contrast would be 3blue1brown, who manages to both hook you and make you understand, even with rather little background.) Could you share a link to your Claude conversation? If this is a prompting issue, I would be interested in seeing what's possible. Thanks!