It turns out it is pointless, we just work in a very fad-driven industry. Once Google started computing in a black hole, it just automatically became popular, and eventually it became common knowledge. “Can’t get fired for computing in a black hole” they’d say.
Then the Hackernews guys put their server in a black hole that turned out to be a wormhole, one thing lead to another, and posts were getting sprayed across the timeline. What a mess.
Throwing around general accusations of fads doesn’t reduce a paper to part of a fad. Papers stand on their own merits, based on their reasoning, independent if any associations with fads.
I expect the properties of a black hole are simply a convenient context to talk about the holographic principle.
If the holographic principle holds true, it is true across any border separating one space from another.
Likewise, mathematicians prove things about infinities, which we will never encounter directly, but which have useful implications for things in math that can relate to things we might create or encounter.
The time police insist that I inform everyone that my post about accidentally posting across timelines is, in fact, just a joke, nothing serious, haha.
Of course! Once you know you are going to lose the time war you just rotate and reflect your polarity through your current Lorentzian manifold point to switch sides and win.
The trusty eternal Möbius Timeline Gambit. Never invented, just reused and reused ...
That’s why I stick with Oort cloud computing. It might take 22 days to get the request back, but the chance that anyone can see that data is astronomical.
People have been working at the intersection of blackhole physics and quantum computing/information since the early 90s. This is a ripe area to work in, because this is where QM+GR are most likely to break.
While we are ultimately interested in the physical limits of computers in our universe, working within the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence gives us a precise framework for quantum gravity. As well, a fundamental observation in computer science is that the power of computers is robust to “reasonable” changes in the details of the computing model: classical computers can be described in terms of Turing machines, uniform circuits, etc. and the resources needed to solve a given computational problem will change only polynomially. Quantum computers are similarly robust. This robustness suggests understanding the power of computers in AdS is likely to yield insights that apply more broadly.
I'm decidedly not an expert in this field but as I understand it there are two points to doing the math in this way:
- We know how to describe the inside of a black hole mathematically from an AdS perspective.
- IF the AdS/CFT correspondence is true (likely but unproven), then you can generalize from "works inside black hole" to "works inside the normal universe".
It's more an exploratory step towards getting a better understanding of complexity theory for quantum computers than it is a practical result intended for doing computations inside black holes.
It's important to remember that we know very well that we don't live in an AdS space. It's actually not all that likely that many of these theories apply to a de Sitter space-time like our universe, though it remains to be seen.
That is, even if the AdS/CFT correspondence is true, it may still turn out that the dS/CFT correspondence is not, and so the results are not applicable to the physical universe.
You're currently possibly living inside one. Big Bang? - The initial collapse. Universe expansion? - Matter falling in. It may be unfalsifiable from inside though.
