Shawn Ryan

Is there a natural sense in which you want to live one dimensional lower?

For example, maybe one intuitive thing of why it might be nice is that

If I have a global symmetry, so I have something that's not related to these long-distance interactions, then typically I need to go and measure the charges of the objects throughout the constant time slice that I'm in.

We're saying this is Gauss's Law story, that I can measure the electric charge in a configuration by just having some probe of the electric field at infinity.

And so in ADS-CFT, there's a sense in which this boundary theory is evolving in time, and you want to find the dynamics of the boundary theory.

So there's a dynamics of the boundary conditions of the bulk theory that end up, I guess, telling you there's an equivalent presentation of the bulk theory.

So I think the fact that it is holographic is deeper and probably, if it were true, has deeper implications for the right physical quantities to be talking about in the bulk, but again,

And so I think that's the sense in which, sure, if I felt more confident that the state of the dictionary were where I really had a good intuition for the thing, then I could try to pull back and say, let me like the fact that it's described as this boundary theory.

What does that mean for what's a good thing to talk about in the book?

But I don't think it's formed enough for me to have that type of assertion or make that type of.

enthusiastic claim given the danger of like how it's interpreted.

Yeah.

I am visualizing as a Penrose diagram with a sphere and just some like, like light shades, I guess.

Um, probably that and, or yeah, some equations.

So I'm basically just a bunch of Penrose diagrams by the slides and the talks I would give.

Yeah, I do.

I know, but that's not necessarily very helpful, right?

So, like, that's a problem with, like, when you're a grad student, they often say, like, shut up and compute.

And I used to take it as, like, a personal offense.

Like, I can think, too.