<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Toward Holographic Reconstruction of Bulk Geometry from Lattice Simulations · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1709.01932/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1709.01932/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Toward Holographic Reconstruction of Bulk Geometry from Lattice Simulations — mentioned by evanb</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15715461</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1709.01932:15715461</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 19:03:28 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Yeah, I went straight to the static solutions for simplicity of discussion. From the outside, though, is it even in principle possible to tell whether a BH is a stellar-collapse Bh or if it&amp;#x27;s an eternal Schwarschild vacuum BH? Now we&amp;#x27;re outside of my realm of expertise. Do I recall properly from my GR class that once stellar collapse begins the outer shell reaches the singularity in a finite time? In that case, I think it does come down to philosophy (if you&amp;#x27;re staying within GR) or some theory that resolves the singularity to say whether the BH is &amp;quot;made of matter&amp;quot; or not. &amp;gt; I&amp;#x27;ll assume you…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1709.01932/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>hep-th</category></item></channel></rss>
