TOWARDS A SOLID QM THEORY: A Basis of FTL Travel

By: Dr. Paul Karl Hoiland

Abstract: I will show that there exists a solution using some of De Broglie-Bohm
Theory in conjuction with a modified particle picture that does account for certain
quantum actions and non-locality if one accepts and off the brane fundamental sub-
quantum Dirac ether of an absolute space and zero time frame

De Broglie-Bohm Theory
This is currently the only interpretation in which all quantum effects are explained
through causal continuous motions in space-time. Although it has not yet been
generalized to relativistic domains it has been shown to fully contain the manifest (quasi-
classical) world .
The Schrodinger equation can be treated the same way we would normally treat any other
complex equation in physics just by separating real and imaginary parts and looking for
the physical interpretation of each term. This was in essence the first hidden-variable
theory proposed by de Broglie (as a direct consequence of his postulate of matter waves)
and later developed by Bohm. In the 1950's when Bell was studying the hidden-variable
theories he described the de Broglie-Bohm theory as having been `scandalously
neglected'.
The basic idea is that the particle has a real position and momentum and that it is guided
by the matter wave so as to reproduce exactly the normal results of QM. We can see how
this comes about if we start with Schrodinger's equation for a mass m in a potential V(r),
h
d  /2π2 
ih/2π Ψ=-  2
 ∇ Ψ+ V Ψ,
dt  2m 

if we now define real functions of position R and S such that Ψ = R exp(iS/h/2π), substitute
and rearrange, separating real and imaginary parts we get,
dR2  S 
2
+ ∇·  R ∇  =0
dt  m 

and
dS 1
+ (∇S)2 + V - Q = 0,
dt 2m

where,
Q = - (h/2p2/2m)Ñ2R/R .
All we have done is to write Schrodinger's equation in terms of R and S but we can now
see the physical ideas underlying the theory. Note that R2 equals |Ψ2|, which is the
probability density of finding a particle over a certain distance. Also if we assume that the
particle has a velocity v = ∇S/m then
dR2  S 
2
+ ∇·  R ∇  =0
dt  m 

is just the equation of continuity for the probability density and the second and third
terms of equation are the kinetic and potential energies of the particle. From separating
the variables in the time dependant case it follows that [(d)/(dt)] S = - E, the total energy,
and
dS 1
+ (ÑS)2 + V - Q = 0,
dt 2m
is equivalent to the energy conservation equation with a modified potential. The last term,
Q, is known as the `quantum potential' and the differences between quantum and classical
predictions are due only to this additional term. Classical emergence occurs when this
term is small and thus, becomes classical.

THE SOLUTION

However, if we backup and consider the particle, not as some point set of energy/mass
being carried by the pilot wave, but as the whole pilot wave itself we then get the same
basic picture the above has been trying to generate but we have abandoned the point
particle picture of matter. The uncertainty principle still applies to this interpretation but
it no longer means that reality is unsure about its self only that our observations of it are
fundamentally limited. That limit is imposed by our own macro lightcone state under this
view. Those portions of the pilot wave that are not C limited cannot be directly viewed
in our classical space-time.

As to the issue of the double slit experiments, this wave, which is actually are particle,
would cross through both slits. The result is the same pattern we see duplicated over and
over again.
If we back up a bit, to my proposed zero point frame of reference(1) then the quantum
potential has its basis in a sub-quantum Dirac ether of an absolute space and zero time
frame. If we were sitting in the rest frame of a photon, watching it from above as it sits
like a floating feather of EM energy in the sea of space-time. Then the two slits apparatus
hurtles past at the speed of light. We’d get exactly the same pattern reproduced as above.
The difference is there acceleration is caused by space-time curvature. Thus, the source
of acceleration and the arrow of time is the curvature of space-time at a local level with
its combined effect producing the over all limit on information flow. Also if it were
acceleration being caused by curvature, then we’d get no emission of photons. This then
suggest how the underlying cause comes about from the fact that the quantum potential
bends light and deflects the path of charged particles without making them radiate. But it
also suggests that we have a hidden frame of reference in this universe with expanded
lightcone states that only a modified version of SR/GR can take into account.

Quantum tunneling and non-locality effects, like those in entanglement, would be due to
actual wormhole like connections through space, not time. These connections I believe
are the long mentioned off the brane states from M-Theory. All that is required from a
QM perspective is to model the particle as the whole wave. From here, as shown above
one naturally is led to such a conclusion. As one can see, this model fully abandons the
point particle concept in favor of a more M-Theory like particle picture.

Now, if we look at some of Kant’s ideas on space and time, as illustrated by the
following diagram

Kant's idea that space and time do not exist among things-in-themselves has been
curiously affirmed by Relativity and quantum mechanics. In Relativity, time simply
ceases to pass at the velocity of light: for photons that have travelled to us as part of the
Cosmic Background Radiation, time has stood still for most of the history of the universe.
On the other hand, quantum mechanics now posits "non-locality," i.e. physical
distances, and so the limitation of the velocity of light in Relativity, don't seem to exist,
as demonstrated by Entanglement. If, for instance, a positron and an election are both
created from an energetic photon, the conservation of angular momentum requires that
one be spinning one way, and the other the other. But the complementary spins are
equally probably for each particle. Thus, in quantum mechanical terms, the wave
functions of each particle separate without a discrete state being determined. The
particles might then separate to even cosmological distances, but as soon as the spin of
one particle is observed, the other particle must have the opposite spin, which means that
the wave function has collapsed across those cosmological distances and caused the other
particle to assume a predictable spin. If this occurs instantaneously, it would violate the
limitation of the velocity of light in Special Relativity. This has now been shown to be
true via experiments with entanglement(2). So at some level we have an already proven
by experiment fact that SR is in need of a fundamental modification.

Now, contemporary physics states that no object should be able to travel faster than the
speed of light. What they fail to state is that whether superluminal speeds are possible in
principle depends on the real structure of the space-time continuum, which contemporary
physics ignores, however. The above argument begins to address that issue of the real
struxture of the space-time continuum. Up until now we have had two basic choices:

• Galilean Space-Time (GST)

• Minkowski Space-Time (MST)
Briefly, whereas Galilean space-time allows the realization of faster-than-light speeds, at
least in principle, Minkowski space-time does not.

It is important to note that without some definition of global time the physical quantity
speed (and thus light-speed) has no definite meaning anyway. Why? Consider an
example: Imagine an object moving from position A to B. Its speed v is given by the
formula

Here, the start time t(A,start) and the finish time t(B,finish) are read off from two spatially
separated clocks: one clock is located at point A and the other one at point B. Now, the
difference of the two times in the denominator t(B,finish) - t(A,start) is an indefinite
expression, unless there exists a rule how to synchronize both clocks, because clock B
ignores the "current" time at clock A at first. But, in fact, the decision in favour of a
particular synchronization rule is pure convention, because it seems impossible to send
an "instantenous" (infinitely fast) message from A to B like "Initialize the clocks now!".
Thus, the actual quantity of speed is conventional too, depending on the particular choice
of the simultaneity definition.
Minkowski Space-Time does not know any absolute time which is physically
meaningful. It was the revolutionary idea of Albert Einstein to give the notion of
simultaneity a new definition. Especially, because all experimental tests to determine the
motion with respect to some absolute space-time frame had failed, he decided to abandon
the notion of absolute time at all. In the famous theory of relativity he postulated two
principles which should hold for all physics:
 1) All physical laws appear according to the same laws in all reference frames.
2) The speed of light is constant in all reference frames.
Now, while the first postulate seems well established by observation and experiments, the
second one is simply an assumption. It implies, in contrast to Galilean Space-Time, that
simultaneity is not an absolute physical quality, but a relative one, depending on the
motion of the observer (ie. the reference frame). However, it has to be emphasized that
although the existence of a physical absolute time (or, equivalently, a preferred reference
frame) could not be established by experiments, the theory of special relativity does not
disprove it either.

So, let’s go back to the above discussion of a decent QM model. Under Bohm’s version
one encounters aspects of the pilot wave that exceeds the local established value for C,
and modern experimental aspects of entanglement we also encounter something similar.
So let’s make the assumption that statement 2, is simply a limited case finding and that
there are aspects to space-time in which this limited finding does not apply. What effect
would this have?

The general coordinate transformation from this particular reference frame R to a general
one R' (primed coordinates) reads

where the relative speed v of R' with respect to R is chosen to be parallel to the x-axis.
The transformation properly expresses the apparent contraction of moving rods (Lorentz-
Fitzgerald contraction) and the slowing of moving clocks (time dilation). The function
S(x') simply determines the notion of simultaneity in frame R'. Generally, S(x') can be an
arbitrary function, but it is convenient to impose S(0) = 0 such that the clocks of the
reference frames R and R' are synchronized at the origin (x,t) = (0,0) = (x',t').
Furthermore, in order to avoid acceleratory effects, one usually imposes that S(x') is
linear in x', ie. S(x') = s x'.

But, if we substitute a different value for C into the above equation we maintain the
Lorentz Invariance, at the expence that C is no longer a constant. However, if we try to
project this altered situation back into a frame were C has the value we measure it at
globally, we loose some of the information in the transfer and encounter a situation where
the energies of such particles within the altered frame system crossing into our regular
region would seem to be higher than we can account for due to their measurable velocity.
We would also loose some of the information in any quantum accounting which would
give the appearance then of action at a distance, or non-locality. So, by simply
modifying Relativity to include states who’s value for C is higher than our own we have
also provided a solid solution to the Non-locality problem proposed by Bell(3).
It can be shown that Einstein's second postulate is equivalent to setting S(x') = - v/c^2 x',
so that one obtains the well known Lorentz transformation equations

with the speed of light c' = dr'/dt'(r=ct) = c constant in all frames. Thus, from the
viewpoint of relativity, all reference frames are completely equivalent. And when we
substitute in a new value for C we find this to still hold, until we try to compare systems
whos local velocity for light, or information transfer is different.

The Traditional QM approach has suffered this problem when it comes to bringing
gravity into the fold. For most of us there is an inevitable logic in this sort of structure:
an event at A causes an effect on an object at B, which later causes a reaction in a
separate object at C, which may or may not have an effect on A at some time in "the
future". That C comes objectively after A and is determined by it has the force of an
axiom (the causal order A - B after all defines what we mean by "after"), and that objects
like C are "made of" more fundamental component objects and processes like A is not
even a "good theory" - it is more obvious than that, so obvious, indeed, that one needs
constantly reminding that the formal expression of these concepts in the doctrine of micro
reductive determinism was the result of centuries of European philosophical thought.
This is a cultural invention, and was not always axiomatic; now it is not axiomatic again,
because quantum theory (in principle if not quite yet in fact) quantizes gravity along with
the other forces and by thus quantizing space-time (which is Einstein's gravity field)
promises to deny us any way of making this matrix of space and time precise enough to
define when and where an isolable event takes place, and the non-locality of quantum
systems calls into question the very meaning of an "isolable event". The particular axiom
which quantum gravity threatens to undermine, therefore, is the axiom that the causal
order and the space-time order are the same thing.

But, this view I have proposed keeps the casual order of events in this universe stable,
while explaining the whole issue of Non-locality in general. In this model of quantum
theory, casual order is preserved as is the space-time order. However, by the
introduction of Bohm views into a model where the wave is itself the particle, we have
automatically introduced on the surface a dual time frame. The reason is that with
Bohm’s original pilot wave the particle was present within the wave, being carried along
by it. Depending upon the particles mass its local velocity would always be less than the
overall wave’s velocity. Even with a zero rest mass particle like the photon, this would
still be true. Thus, when we picture the whole wave as the particle, we automatically
introduce one state with a C limited time and another with an expanded lightcone state.

Now, if we wish to include a proper string theory based view into this, we’d find these
two states to be the result of the mixing of two separate time states themselves. So in
essence we’d have to introduce what actually amounts to a Triple time format into our
model. One Time state is the resultant, the extended one is the compacted regions time,
and the third would be the full off the brane time state which is negative. However, for
the case in point of introducing this basic model I have simplified it to the brane and
compacted region only.

Now, to get a better picture of the structure at the quantum level we need to go a bit
further in our quest. We need to examine the basic structure of this level and the
information we can gain from this surface or volume. To do this we must study the most
basic structure of the quantum level. That structure is defined by Loop Quantum Gravity
and spin networks.

INTRODUCTION TO LQG

Research in loop quantum gravity today forms a vast area, ranging from mathematical
foundations to physical applications. Among the most significant results obtained are: (i)
The computation of the physical spectra of geometrical quantities such as area and
volume, which yields quantitative predictions on Planck-scale physics. (ii) A derivation
of the Bekenstein-Hawking black hole entropy formula. (iii) An intriguing physical
picture of the microstructure of quantum physical space, characterized by a polymer-like
Planck scale discreteness. This discreteness emerges naturally from the quantum theory
and provides a mathematically well-defined realization of Wheeler's intuition of a
spacetime ``foam''.

In this formulation, the field variable is a self-dual connection, instead of the metric, and
the canonical constraints are simpler than in the old metric formulation. The idea of using
a self-dual connection as field variable and the simple constraints it yields were
discovered by Amitaba Sen(4). Abhay Ashtekar realized that in the SU(2) extended
phase space a self-dual connection and a densitized triad field form a canonical pair(5),
and set up the canonical formalism based on such pair, which is the Ashtekar formalism.
Recent works on the loop representation are not based on the original Sen-Ashtekar
connection, but on a real variant of it, whose use has been introduced into Lorentzian
general relativity by Barber(6 ).

Ted Jacobson and Lee Smolin, next realized that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,
reformulated in terms of the new variables, admits a simple class of exact solutions: the
traces of the holonomies of the Ashtekar connection around smooth non-selfintersecting
loops. In other words: The Wilson loops of the Ashtekar connection solve the Wheeler-
DeWitt equation if the loops are smooth and non self-intersecting(7).

This discovery of the Jacobson-Smolin Wilson loop solutions prompted Carlo Rovelli
and Lee Smolin to ``change basis in the Hilbert space of the theory'', choosing the Wilson
loops as the new basis states for quantum gravity. Quantum states can be represented in
terms of their expansion on the loop basis, namely as functions on a space of loops. This
idea is well known in the context of canonical lattice Yang-Mills theory(8).
Certain classical quantities play a very important role in the quantum theory. These are:
the trace of the holonomy of the connection, which is labeled by loops on the three
manifold; and the higher order loop variables, obtained by inserting the E field (in n
distinct points, or ``hands'') into the holonomy trace. More precisely, given a loop in M
and the points we define:

and, in general

where is the parallel propagator of along ,

defined by

These are the loop observables, introduced in Yang Mills theories and in gravity. The
loop observables coordinatize the phase space and have a closed Poisson algebra, denoted
by the loop algebra. This algebra has a remarkable geometrical flavor. For instance, the
Poisson bracket between and is non vanishing only if lies over ; if it
does, the result is proportional to the holonomy of the Wilson loops obtained by joining
and at their intersection (by rerouting the 4 legs at the intersection). More precisely

Here

is a vector distribution with support on and is the loop obtained starting at the
intersection between and , and following first and then . is with reversed
orientation.

A (non-SU(2) gauge invariant) quantity that plays a role in certain aspects of the theory,
particularly in the regularization of certain operators, is obtained by integrating the E
field over a two dimensional surface S
where f is a function on the surface S, taking values in the Lie algebra of SU

A subspace of is formed by states invariant under SU(2) gauge transformations. We

now define an orthonormal basis in . This basis represents a very important tool for
using the theory. First, given a loop in M, there is a normalized state in , which
is obtained by taking and f(g)=-Tr(g). Namely

We introduce a Dirac notation for the abstract states, and denote this state as . These
sates are called loop states. Using Dirac notation, we can write

It is easy to show that loop states are normalizable. Products of loop states are
normalizable as well. Following tradition, we denote with also a multiloop, namely a
collection of (possibly overlapping) loops , and we call

a multiloop state. (Multi-)loop states represented the main tool for loop quantum gravity
before the discovery of the spin network basis. Linear combinations of multiloop states
(over-)span , and therefore a generic state is fully characterized by its projections
on the multiloop states, namely by

The ``old'' loop representation was based on representing quantum states in this manner,
namely by means of the functionals over loop space defined. Next, consider a graph
. A ``coloring'' of is given by the following.

1. Associate an irreducible representation of SU(2) to each link of . Equivalently,

we may associate to each link a half integer number , the spin of the
irreducible, or, equivalently, an integer number , the ``color'' .
2. Associate an invariant tensor v in the tensor product of the representations
, to each node of in which links with spins meet. An invariant
tensor is an object with n indices in the representations that transform
covariantly. If n=3, there is only one invariant tensor (up to a multiplicative
factor), given by the Clebsh-Gordon coefficient. An invariant tensor is also called
 an intertwining tensor. All invariant tensors are given by the standard Clebsch-
Gordon theory. More precisely, for fixed , the invariant tensors form a
finite dimensional linear space. Pick a basis is this space, and associate one of
these basis elements to the node. Notice that invariant tensors exist only if the
tensor product of the representations contains the trivial representation.
This yields a condition on the coloring of the links. For n=3, this is given by the
well known Clebsh-Gordan condition: Each color is not larger than the sum of the
other two, and the sum of the three colors is even.

We indicate a colored graph by , or simply , and denote it a ``spin

network''.

Given a spin network S, we can construct a state as follows. We take the

propagator of the connection along each link of the graph, in the representation associated
to that link, and then, at each node, we contract the matrices of the representation with the
invariant tensor. We obtain a state , which we also write as

One can then show the following.

• The spin network states are renormalizable(9).

• They are SU(2) gauge invariant.
• Each spin network state can be decomposed into a finite linear combination of
products of loop states.
• The (normalized) spin network states form an orthonormal basis for the gauge
SU(2) invariant states in (choosing the basis of invariant tensors appropriately).
• The scalar product between two spin network states can be easily computed
graphically and algebraically(10).

The spin network states provide a very convenient basis for the quantum theory and fully
allow us to break down the quantum space-time structure into descrete units. At this
point we are actually breaking down the String or Membrane itself(The wave that is the
particle) into separate units we can examine and measure information from off its surface
or volume.

Next, associate to a loop state a diagram in M, formed by the loop itself. Next, notice
that we can multiply two loop states, obtaining a normalizable state. We represent the
product of n loop states by the diagram formed by the set of the n (possibly overlapping)
corresponding loops (we denote this set ``multiloop''). Thus, linear combinations of
multiloops diagrams represent states in . Representing states as linear combinations of
multiloops diagrams makes computation in easy.
Now, the spin network state defined by the graph with no nodes , with color 1, is clearly,
by definition, the loop state , and we represent it by the diagram . The spin network
state determined by the graph without nodes , with color n can be obtained as
follows. Draw n parallel lines along the loop ; cut all lines at an arbitrary point of , and
consider the n! diagrams obtained by joining the legs after a permutation. The linear
combination of these n! diagrams, taken with alternate signs (namely with the sign
determined by the parity of the permutation) is precisely the state . The reason for
this key result can be found in the fact that an irreducible representation of SU(2) can be
obtained as the totally symmetric tensor product of the fundamental representation with
itself.

Next, consider a graph with nodes. Draw parallel lines along each link . Join
pairwise the end points of these lines at each node (in an arbitrary manner), in such a way
that each line is joined with a line from a different link. In this manner, one obtains a
multiloop diagram. Now antisymmetrize the parallel lines along each link, obtaining a
linear combination of diagrams representing a state in . One can show that this state is a
spin network state, where is the color of the links, and the color of the nodes is
determined by the pairwise joining of the legs chosen. Again, simple SU(2)
representation theory is behind this result. This can be represented by the following:

Construction of ``virtual'' nodes and ``virtual'' links over an n-valent node.

I now define the quantum operators, corresponding to the -variables, as linear operators
on . These form a representation of the loop variables Poisson algebra. The operator
acts diagonally

(Recall that products of loop states and spin network states are normalizable states). In
diagrammatic notation, the operator simply adds a loop to a (linear combination of)
multiloops

Higher order loop operators are expressed in terms of the elementary ``grasp'' operation.
Consider first the operator , with one hand in the point . The operator
annihilates all loop states that do not cross the point . Acting on a loop state , it
gives
where we have introduced the elementary length by

and and are defined before. This action extends by linearity, by continuity and by the
Leibniz rule to products and linear combinations of loop states, and to the full . All the
operators in the theory are then constructed in terms of these basic loop operators, in the
same way in which in conventional QFT one constructs all operators, including the
hamiltonian, in terms of creation and annihilation operators. The construction of the
composite operators requires the development of regularization techniques that can be
used in the absence of a background metric. So at this point we have managed to
eliminate the bachground metric period from our model.

The next step in the construction of the theory is to factor away diffeomorphism
invariance. This is a key step for two reasons. First of all, is a ``huge'' non-separable
space. It is far ``too large'' for a quantum field theory. However, most of this redundancy
is gauge, and disappears when one solves the diffeomorphism constraint, defining the
diff-invariant Hilbert space . This is the reason for which the loop representation,
as defined here, is of great value in diffeomorphism invariant theories only.

The second reason is that turns out to have a natural basis labeled by knots. More
precisely by ``s-knots''. An s-knot s is an equivalence class of spin networks S under
diffeomorphisms. An s-knot is characterized by its ``abstract'' graph (defined only by the
adjacency relations between links and nodes), by the coloring, and by its knotting and
linking properties, as in knot-theory. Thus, the physical quantum states of the
gravitational field turn out to be essentially classified by knot theory.

There are various equivalent ways of obtaining from . One can use regularization
techniques for defining the quantum operator corresponding to the classical
diffeomorphism constraint in terms of elementary loop operators, and then find the kernel
of such operator. Equivalently, one can factor by the natural action of the
diffeomorphism group that it carries. Namely

There are several rigorous ways for defining the quotient of a Hilbert space by the unitary
action of a group.

In the quantum gravity literature, a big deal has been made of the problem that a scalar
product is not defined on the space of solutions of a constraint , defined on a Hilbert
space . This is actually not the case. It is true that if zero is in the continuum spectrum
of , then the corresponding eigenstates are generalized states and the scalar product is
not defined between them. But the generalized eigenspaces of , including the kernel,
inherit nevertheless a scalar product from . This can be seen in a variety of equivalent
ways. For instance, it can be seen from the following theorem. If is self adjoint, then
there exist a measure on its spectrum and a family of Hilbert spaces such that

where the integral is the continuous sum of Hilbert spaces(7). Clearly is the kernel
of equipped with a scalar product.

There are two distinct possibilities for factoring away the diffeomorphisms in the
quantum theory, yielding two distinct version of the theory. The first possibility is to
factor away smooth transformations of the manifold. In doing so, finite dimensional
moduli spaces associated with high valence nodes appear(8), so that the resulting Hilbert
space is still non-separable. The physical relevance of these moduli parameters is unclear
at this stage, since they do not seem to play any role in the quantum theory. Alternatively,
one can consistently factor away continuous transformations of the manifold.

Finally, the definition of the theory is completed by giving the hamiltonian constraint.
The simplest is as follows:

We have

Here i labels the nodes of the s-knot s; (IJ) labels couples of (distinct) links emerging

from i. are the colors of the links emerging from i. is the operator that acts
on an -knot by: (i) creating two additional nodes, one along each of the two links I and J;
(ii) creating a novel link, colored 1, joining these two nodes, (iii) assigning the coloring
and, respectively, to the links that join the new formed nodes with the node
i.

Action of .

The coefficients , which are finite, can be expressed explicitly (but in a rather
laborious way) in terms of products of linear combinations of 6-j symbols of SU(2). The
Lorentzian hamiltonian constraint is given by a similar expression, but quadratic in the
operators.

The operator defined above is obtained by introducing a regularized expression for the
classical hamiltonian constraint, written in terms of elementary loop observables, turning
these observables into the corresponding operators and taking the limit. The construction

works rather magically, relying on the fact, that certain operator limits turn out to
be finite on diff invariant states, thanks to the fact that, for and , sufficiently small,

and are diffeomorphic equivalent. Thus, here diff invariance plays again a
crucial role in the theory.

It has recently be shown that the matrix elements of the operator U(T)

obtained exponentiating the (Euclidean) hamiltonian constraint in the proper time gauge
(the operator that generates evolution in proper time) can be expanded in a Feynman sum
over paths. In conventional QFT each term of a Feynman sum corresponds naturally to a
certain Feynman diagram, namely a set of lines in spacetime meeting at vertices
(branching points). A similar natural structure of the terms appears in quantum gravity,
but surprisingly the diagrams are now given by surfaces is spacetime that branch at
vertices. Thus, one has a formulation of quantum gravity as a sum over surfaces in space-
time.

The interesting thing to note is that your String States actually form on the surface of all
this and that, going back to our particle as the wave model, that membrane is itself a
composite of many different spin forms.

The Holographic Principle, yet unproven, states that there is a maximum amount of
information content held by regions adjacent to any surface. Therefore, counter-
intuitively, the information content inside a room depends not on the volume of the room
but on the area of the bounding walls. The principle derives from the idea that the Planck
length, the length scale where quantum mechanics begins to dominate classical gravity, is
one side of an area that can hold only about one bit of information. The limit was first
postulated by physicist Gerard 't Hooft in 1993(9).

The first assertion of the Holographic Principle is that all of the information contained in
some region of space can be represented as a `Hologram' - a theory which `lives' on the
boundary of that region. The basic idea is all the information in this universe is contained
on its wall, or more exactly at the junction between our brane and the off the brane state.
The second assertion of the Holographic Principle is that the theory on the boundary of
the region of space in question should contain at most one degree of freedom per Planck
area.

A Planck area is the area enclosed by a little square which has side length equal to the
Planck length, a basic unit of length which is usually denoted Lp. The Planck length is a
fundamental unit of length, because it is the parameter with the dimensions of length
which can be constructed out of the basic constants G (Newton's constant for the strength
of gravitational interactions), (Planck's constant from quantum mechanics), and c (the
speed of light). A quick calculation reveals that Lp is very small indeed:

The way in which the Holographic Principle appears in M-theory is much more subtle. In
M-theory we are the shadows on the wall. The `room' is some larger, five-dimensional
space-time and our four-dimensional world is just the boundary of this larger space. If we
try to move away from the wall, we are moving into an extra dimension of space - a fifth
dimension.

In Loop Quantum Gravity you have that surface volume being defined a bit further. In
My own Zero Point idea you have that boundary being examined in relation to SR and
the velocity of information transfer. But all these paths are now very much assumed to
lead to the same basic heart, which is what we now call the Holographic Principle.

The water shed of this is the adS/CFT correspondence which is a type of duality, which
states that two apparently distinct physical theories are actually equivalent. On one side
of this duality is the physics of gravity in a space-time known as anti-de Sitter space
(adS). Five-dimensional anti-de Sitter space has a boundary which is four-dimensional,
and in a certain limit looks like flat space-time with one time and three space directions.
The adS/CFT correspondence states that the physics of gravity in five-dimensional anti-
de Sitter space, is equivalent to a certain supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory which is
defined on the boundary of adS. This Yang-Mills theory is thus a `hologram' of the
physics which is happening in five dimensions. The Yang-Mills theory has gauge group
SU(N), where N is very large, and it is said to be `supersymmetric' because it has a
symmetry which allows you to exchange bosons and fermions. On our side there is no
supersymmetry involved. In fact, we have what is called broken symmetry. The idea is
then that the symmetry of all the forces is only broken because there would be
information loss across the boundary. Another words, the way the holograph is
produced brings about the broken symmetry we find in nature around us.

A central key in this, one I have been trying to utilize is that lost information. I believe
the reason it is lost goes back to how information is transferred within the brane and the
local/global limit on that information transfer. Another words, it centers back on the
issue of C. I also believe that we have other information in nature being transferred at a
higher rate and that the conditions under which that information is being transferred are
our key to developing honest FTL drive.
REFERENCE
1.) Author Journal of Theoretics Vol.4-5 Non-Orientation of Space-Time Proves M-
Theories Compacted or Embedded Regions.
2.) Dr. Serge Haroche, ENS & College de France (ITP 9-26-01)
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/haroche1/pdf/haroche1.pdf
3.) J.S. Bell, Physics 1(1964), p, 195.
4.) Sen, A., ``Gravity as a spin system'', Phys. Lett., B119, 89-91, (1982).
5.) .) Ashtekar, A., ``New variables for classical and quantum gravity'', Phys. Rev. Lett.,
57(18), 2244-2247, (1986), Ashtekar, A., ``New Hamiltonian formulation of general
relativity'', Phys. Rev., D36(6), 1587-1602, (1987).
6.) .) Barbero, F., ``Real-polynomial formulation of general relativity in terms of connections'', Phys.
Rev., D49, 6935-6938, (1994), Barbero, F., ``Real Ashtekar Variables for Lorentzian Signature Space-
times'', Phys. Rev., D 51, 5507-5510, (1995). For a related online version see: F. Barbero, ``Real Ashtekar
Variables for Lorentzian Signature Space-times'', (October, 1994), [Online Los Alamos Preprint Archive]:
cited on 29 September 1997, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9410014, Barbero, F., ``Reality Conditions
and Ashtekar Variables: a Different Perspective'', Phys. Rev., D 51, 5498-5506, (1995). For a related online
version see: F. Barbero, ``Reality Conditions and Ashtekar Variables: a Different Perspective'', (October,
1994), [Online Los Alamos Preprint Archive]: cited on 29 September 1997, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-
qc/9410013.
7.) Jacobson, T., and Smolin, L., ``Nonperturbative quantum geometries'', Nucl. Phys.,
B299(2), 295-345, (1988).
8.) Grot, N., and Rovelli, C., ``Moduli-space of knots with intersections'', J. Math. Phys.,
37, 3014-3021, (1996). For a related online version see: N. Grot, et al., ``Moduli-space of
knots with intersections'', (April, 1996), [Online Los Alamos Preprint Archive]: cited on
29 September 1997, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9604010.
9.) Gerard 't Hooft Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity gr-qc/9310026, L.
Susskind, The World as a Hologram J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995) 6377, hep-th/9409089)