1. “…there has never been any experimental proof of hawking radiation existing.”

and

2. “Another thing i don’t get is the correlation between the information content of a black hole and its event horizon.”

3. Concluding that, “There are apparently a lot of interesting things that can be drawn from this correlation, like the holographic universe theory, but the whole “increased entropy leads to increased area” thing is also entirely theoretical unless it’s been possible to watch how black holes actually behave when they get more energy from surrounding space.”

AFTER he said this (#9 and #10):

4. “All this would be cool to see you talk about in a more simplified and/or pedagogical way for us people who just have this stuff as a hobby interest. Maybe a little audio to go with the slides? For what it’s worth i would personally enjoy that.”

…not to mention a backhanded sleight in the form of this:

5. “Some smooth analogies from the smooth analogies master.”

It is no wonder that physicists automatically spurn the likes of Anders, who might understandably tend to figure that every person who examines “this stuff as a hobby interest” is most probably a crackpot.

It is quite evident you also “don’t get” that you find no reason to understand why it is crucial that YOU understand. Any barking from your kind is nothing more than a contest. You serve no actual purpose but to diminish the authentic amateur theorist that is actually out there that may have something of substance to contribute.

Wouldn’t you think so Anders, “according to [your] brain”?

Feeling obnoxiously clever is not the same as being even slightly let alone fully informed.

My intuitive, back-of-the-back-of-the-mind feeling is that both space and time should both emerge from causality. At my Bear of Little Brain level this fits right in with relativity: from any small patch that is local in space and time, the patches that are causally connected to it are in separated in the “time” direction, and those not causally connected are separated in the “space” direction. It’s sort of a matter of taste as to which of these you want to call “privileged,” but it’s a basic reason to expect two different kinds of separations before making any claims about geometry or even continuity. In Lee Smolin’s book he describes one of the approaches to quantum gravity taking this view, that the fundamental descriptor of the universe is the causality network between different points/events; though at the time of that writing, IIRC, he said they hadn’t made much progress. Know anything about it? (sorry if this is already gone over in your book, I’ve only recently been able to afford a copy and haven’t gotten that far yet)

Or, quoting him:

‘All our spacetime verifications invariably amount to a determination of spacetime coincidences. If, for example, events consisted merely in the motion of material points, then ultimately nothing would be observable but the meeting of two or more of these points.’

‘People before me believed that if all the matter in the universe were removed, only space and time would exist. My theory proves that space and time would disappear along with matter.’

or am I misunderstanding the line of thought expressed in your slides?

Also, doubly unwarranted speculative question: at the *other* boundary condition in the limit of one object in (the? each?) Hubble volume, are there features we can think about that might illuminate (pardon the pun) space and time?