Tangled Up in Spacetime

Scientific American has turned into such a rag... their recent bit about &quot;entangled black holes&quot; was especially cringy.<p>It&#x27;s Michio Kaku level of hand wavery and lack of rigor.

&quot;In the AdS&#x2F;CFT correspondence Maldacena showed that one can completely describe a black hole purely by describing what happens on its surface. In other words, the physics of the inside—the 3-D “bulk”—corresponds perfectly to the physics of the outside—the 2-D “boundary.”&quot;<p>Very interesting!

I thought quantized spacetime had already been disproven below a testable range? I.e. Any theorized particles wouldn&#x27;t be seen by particle accelerators smaller than say a solar system or drastically larger.

I always thought of Einstein&#x27;s theory of General Relativity as a model. For me it doesn&#x27;t explain the execution.<p>This to me makes more sense that at a quantum level there are discreet particles that are being acted on according to relativity. I think of it more like a CPU where this is a clock input.