tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post3403838561005575739..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: No, the black hole information loss problem has not been solved. Even if PRL thinks so.Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-44892855628351943502015-04-15T12:46:08.642-04:002015-04-15T12:46:08.642-04:00Dear Sabine,
You are very welcome!
Best wishes,
...Dear Sabine,<br /><br />You are very welcome!<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />DejanAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05939817976814734417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-61205027217017589702015-04-15T12:13:10.905-04:002015-04-15T12:13:10.905-04:00Hi Dejan,
Thanks for the follow-up comment, much ...Hi Dejan,<br /><br />Thanks for the follow-up comment, much appreciated! Best,<br /><br />SabineSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-64228396604525925772015-04-14T16:08:42.037-04:002015-04-14T16:08:42.037-04:00It is interesting that nobody here notices the sta...It is interesting that nobody here notices the statements from the original article<br /><br />"The research marks a significant step toward solving the information loss paradox."<br /><br />"Stojkovic and Saini’s new paper helps to clarify the story."<br /><br />In the original article you can't find the statement that we solved the information loss paradox. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05939817976814734417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-16088975053828340242015-04-14T11:12:23.398-04:002015-04-14T11:12:23.398-04:00Interesting controversy ! I do not know enough abo...Interesting controversy ! I do not know enough about the subject to make any scientific comment. But I would say that in general controversies are healthy for science. There could be sacrificial lambs in the process! But in the long run this is good for science. Let the best theory win! Because of the "40 years controversy" I would like to see comments of people who have actually kashyap vasavadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10732897306667764590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-30831215916207874152015-04-13T04:44:57.771-04:002015-04-13T04:44:57.771-04:00Darius,
Hawking radiation, as the name says, is r...Darius,<br /><br />Hawking radiation, as the name says, is radiation. Dark energy doesn't have the same equation of state as radiation. Consequently, hawking radiation can't be dark energy. You merely demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. I will delete further off-topic comments like this (Phillip!). Thanks,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-18983632448066494462015-04-13T04:12:13.185-04:002015-04-13T04:12:13.185-04:00Recently I went to a theory department open day, w...<i>Recently I went to a theory department open day, where I stated there was a connection between Hawking radiation and dark energy.</i><br /><br />On what grounds? Where is your evidence? Can you explain why the derivation for Hawking radiation is the same even in a universe without dark energy?<br /><br /><i>"Hawking radiation is dark energy," I finally said. A prominent academic Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-24228607458829188192015-04-13T04:07:22.632-04:002015-04-13T04:07:22.632-04:00"Does anybody worry about information loss ov...<i>"Does anybody worry about information loss over the other horizon? Thanks to dark energy everything beyond redshift z=1.8 is already forever out of causal contact with us, and distance is creeping ever closer."</i><br /><br />Be careful about arguing too far from analogies between black-hole horizons and cosmological horizons. For starters, the latter are relative: what is on the Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-2692148382649718742015-04-13T04:06:55.880-04:002015-04-13T04:06:55.880-04:00Rastus,
Dejan had all chance to explain himself i...Rastus,<br /><br />Dejan had all chance to explain himself in the comments. Instead he chose to attack me personally. He had all chance to ask for a guest post. He didn't. He even had a chance prior to publishing by email to explain himself - and let me add that this exchange did cause me to considerably take off the edge of this blogpost which in my book is pretty nice, it only got nasty in Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65800388494301052972015-04-13T02:58:07.978-04:002015-04-13T02:58:07.978-04:00Actually, what SH could have done was to politely ...Actually, what SH could have done was to politely invite Prof Stojkovic to write a guest post here, and then you could have a civilized debate. Instead that has happened at, of all places, Lubos Motl's blog!<br /><br />One thing prof S said is definitely correct: a *lot* of people really hate this style of blogging. You may not *care*, but make sure you *know*.Rastus Odinga Odingahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615544434035028500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-50950083297127985672015-04-12T22:06:34.501-04:002015-04-12T22:06:34.501-04:00Sudip: Yes, I upvoted your post, as I agreed with ...Sudip: Yes, I upvoted your post, as I agreed with all your points. I mainly wanted to add, it's clear DS did what he denies. His problem isn't that the accusation is unjust. It's rather that the truth hurts.<br /><br />As for behoove, I suggest not relying on any one def in any one source. But let's start with:<br />https://www.wordnik.com/words/behoove<br />The original root MikePhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13000103039799177943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-307314861701362792015-04-12T20:49:11.939-04:002015-04-12T20:49:11.939-04:00Sabine, I hope you keep commenting on papers like ...Sabine, I hope you keep commenting on papers like this one no matter what the authors have to say about it. While I'm sure professional physicists working on black hole information can assess the merits of the paper for themselves, there is a larger group of people out there - like me - who studied physics in school but then scattered into other professions. Nevertheless, I know enough to tim314https://www.blogger.com/profile/05239614523964326844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15956866710499249942015-04-12T15:10:13.888-04:002015-04-12T15:10:13.888-04:00Sabine,
That's understandable, my post certai...Sabine,<br /><br />That's understandable, my post certainly did not contain that much scientific information, however, it did not contain a potentially informative <i>gedanken experiment</i>:<br /><br /><b>What if we posit the observer of information inside the black hole?</b><br /><br />In any case, I will leave it at that: short and to the point.<br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />D.Nikbin, Dariushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09673611975076324091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-72124681965133800982015-04-12T05:38:51.936-04:002015-04-12T05:38:51.936-04:00CIP: Off-topic.
Darius: You have posted a lot of...CIP: Off-topic. <br /><br />Darius: You have posted a lot of comments in this thread, and they don't contain a lot of interesting information, that's why. You are simply limiting the readability of everybody else's comments. It's taken years until Zephir learned that my biggest problem with his comments isn't the content but the frequency. I hope you're somewhat quicker onSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57960790744342349852015-04-12T03:51:24.741-04:002015-04-12T03:51:24.741-04:00Sabine,
I don't understand why my comment was...Sabine,<br /><br />I don't understand why my comment was removed. <br /><br />Recently I went to a theory department open day, where I stated there was a connection between Hawking radiation and dark energy. "Hawking radiation is dark energy," I finally said. A prominent academic replied to my face, "No.", without further explanation or allowing me to elaborate.<br /><br /Nikbin, Dariushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09673611975076324091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-74678836747408680742015-04-12T00:24:11.700-04:002015-04-12T00:24:11.700-04:00Does anybody worry about information loss over the...Does anybody worry about information loss over the other horizon? Thanks to dark energy everything beyond redshift z=1.8 is already forever out of causal contact with us, and distance is creeping ever closer.CapitalistImperialistPighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17523405806602731435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81678639337842491522015-04-11T23:16:14.785-04:002015-04-11T23:16:14.785-04:00Very interesting that after Sabine wrote her blogp...Very interesting that after Sabine wrote her blogpost on April 7, the authors hurriedly added the following sentences in the conclusion of version 3 on April 8: "For unitarity to be manifest to an observer, he has to be able to observe the total density matrix, i.e. all the created modes and correlations between them. If some of the modes are lost into the singularity, then the incomplete sudiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11478911457960803441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-19847141308734031522015-04-11T22:52:13.381-04:002015-04-11T22:52:13.381-04:00Can't believe what I am reading here either. ...Can't believe what I am reading here either. The attitude on display by Dejan Stojkovic is nothing but despicable.<br /><br />Sudip put it best. <br /><br />The only thing to add is that Mr D. better get used to getting much more scrutiny from blogs.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479459346584756683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73281467773488990692015-04-11T11:13:59.854-04:002015-04-11T11:13:59.854-04:00Uncle AI and Bee, the comment is still there. Pres...Uncle AI and Bee, the comment is still there. Presumably my aging eyes. Barhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00964494372792180918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-92180474793953618632015-04-11T10:24:33.610-04:002015-04-11T10:24:33.610-04:00@Bar,
Bee is most forgiving of any skepticism I m...@Bar,<br /><br />Bee is most forgiving of any skepticism I may express toward a science that no longer produces empirically falsifiable outputs. Three conditions:<br /><br />1) An idea longer than ~100 words is not there.<br />2) (1) without empirical test is not there.<br />3) Citations. Whether standing on giants' shoulders or corpses' bellies, show you know the territory.<br />4) Uncle Alhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05056804084187606211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-15742480575523371542015-04-11T09:36:07.109-04:002015-04-11T09:36:07.109-04:00ft -> tfft -> tfSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-85442293364559500482015-04-11T09:35:17.364-04:002015-04-11T09:35:17.364-04:00CIP, Regarding PRL standards. I recently was asked...CIP, Regarding PRL standards. I recently was asked for opinion on a paper considered for PRL in an odd arrangement, in which I wasn't really asked to review it, but merely whether it was indeed relevant for 'my community' (in this case, black holes) as the authors claimed. The honest answer to this was no, and I am afraid that was sufficient reason to reject the paper (which was Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82014472253335020702015-04-11T09:28:43.240-04:002015-04-11T09:28:43.240-04:00I haven't deleted any of Uncle's comments,...I haven't deleted any of Uncle's comments, and there's nothing in the spam queue either. I deleted on of Darius' comments.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-75643519137484756002015-04-11T09:00:20.453-04:002015-04-11T09:00:20.453-04:00Uncle AI.
Your funniest remark yet has disappeared...Uncle AI.<br />Your funniest remark yet has disappeared. I know not whether you or Bee deleted it but your suggestion was an excellent experiment regarding theoretical physicists. <br />Although I believe I can show the fundamental result that he would find two s-it for brains both wrong. Bee would acknowledge this but correctly point out that this result is well established and says nothing Barhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00964494372792180918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-6408575702839203282015-04-11T05:41:18.690-04:002015-04-11T05:41:18.690-04:00Sabine is making a very good work with her blog. P...Sabine is making a very good work with her blog. People must know it! nemohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07365330980872106443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-35629348161591715072015-04-11T04:07:41.623-04:002015-04-11T04:07:41.623-04:00Mister D last comment (12:49 PM, April 10, 2015) s...Mister D last comment (12:49 PM, April 10, 2015) sounds to me like a polite but unacceptable intimidation. The request is even more unacceptable because it comes from a member of the scientific community.<br /><br />Regardless of whether mister D work is right or wrong, I believe mister D's request of not mentioning his name in the post or the request of not discussing his work goes against Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08179175898356555181noreply@blogger.com