tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post6594920554165955817..comments2018-03-16T20:44:37.681-04:00Comments on Backreaction: Black holes don’t exist again. Newsflash: It’s a trap!Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://plus.google.com/111136225362929878171noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81673611521700887792015-02-09T22:22:21.999-05:002015-02-09T22:22:21.999-05:00The measurement shows that the calculation has act...The measurement shows that the calculation has actually taken place and therefore that the information has existed and therefore the space has stored the information. This experience demonstrates the existence of an objective genuine computational process, it would be absurd to claim that because we can only measure the result of the calculation that it is not an objective phenomenon that nicolas pouparthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17722878242014554884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-53877791606298207562015-02-09T18:48:29.691-05:002015-02-09T18:48:29.691-05:00"If the wavefunction is a state of knowledge,..."If the wavefunction is a state of knowledge, seemingly inconvenient quantum phenomena<br />such as wavefunction collapse can be explained elegantly:<br />if the wavefunction represents knowledge, a measurement<br />only collapses our ignorance about the real state of af-<br />fairs, without necessarily changing reality; there is thus<br />no physical collapse in the epistemic picture, but hushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16176588791118304829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-66926785613184722352015-02-09T17:26:18.493-05:002015-02-09T17:26:18.493-05:00@hush
Quantum computing is a practical use of the...@hush <br />Quantum computing is a practical use of the wave function, if the calculation is actually performed, so this calculation is real and the wave function is real.nicolas pouparthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17722878242014554884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-66581561031775514072015-02-09T16:47:45.855-05:002015-02-09T16:47:45.855-05:00@nicolas
A description. True.
You see more than ...@nicolas<br /><br />A description. True.<br /><br />You see more than that?hushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16176588791118304829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-14774887654305548582015-02-09T15:41:07.430-05:002015-02-09T15:41:07.430-05:00""I can only hope that Lisa Zyga, who wr...""I can only hope that Lisa Zyga, who wrote the piece at phys.org, will learn from this that solely relying on the author’s own statements is never good journalistic practice.""<br /><br />There is another post from Ahmed and Lisa:<br />http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.htmlGeorghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02538391164351204407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-14423896341802745472015-02-09T08:55:09.577-05:002015-02-09T08:55:09.577-05:00Henning,
Alain Connes gave an absolutely amazing t...Henning,<br />Alain Connes gave an absolutely amazing talk on this work:<br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_4hRuNvDmU" rel="nofollow">Geometry and the quantum</a><br />Best<br />MarkusMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03431499396962852389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-12240147074061213702015-02-08T20:33:08.468-05:002015-02-08T20:33:08.468-05:00If the ambition of the quantum theory to describe ...If the ambition of the quantum theory to describe the reality turns out true, the wave function is necessarily real. If this comment exists in a world where it is deleted and in another world where it is not then the wave function is not real.nicolas pouparthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17722878242014554884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-89168655729648680762015-02-08T16:23:51.610-05:002015-02-08T16:23:51.610-05:00Alice,
Narrowing our chances to be anything*
*Be...Alice,<br /><br />Narrowing our chances to be anything*<br /><br />*Besides reality.<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.6213v2.pdf<br /><br />...on the reality of the wave function.<br /><br />Boding Bob<br /><br />Risk of off topic deletion accepted.hushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16176588791118304829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-39944927783925813542015-02-08T07:53:45.901-05:002015-02-08T07:53:45.901-05:00Arun: For more up to date info you can watch the ...Arun: For more up to date info you can watch the the elogs of both the detectors which are public to see progress on a daily basis. Of course the postings on these are technical<br />https://alog.ligo-la.caltech.edu/aLOG/<br />and<br />https://alog.ligo-wa.caltech.edu/aLOG/Shantanuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16322812456382858228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70463023474357132762015-02-07T10:37:23.044-05:002015-02-07T10:37:23.044-05:00Thanks, Shantanu, following forward from there, I&...Thanks, Shantanu, following forward from there, I've reached July 2014:<br />http://www.nature.com/news/physics-wave-of-the-future-1.15561<br /><br />"Physics: Wave of the future<br /><br />After two decades and more than half a billion dollars, LIGO, the world's largest gravitational-wave observatory, is on the verge of a detection. Maybe."<br /><br />Haven't found anythingArunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-32223715541222583542015-02-07T01:28:01.307-05:002015-02-07T01:28:01.307-05:00Islam:
I know that this is what the paper *wants*...Islam:<br /><br />I know that this is what the paper *wants* to say. But this isn't how science works. I don't care what the authors *want* to be true, I care what claim their argument actually supports. And their calculation shows nothing of that type. Best,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-6493093703825889792015-02-06T18:29:03.832-05:002015-02-06T18:29:03.832-05:00Sabine, l enjoy reading your blog. l think that it...Sabine, l enjoy reading your blog. l think that it's amazing, love reading your views and analysis.Also, l am writing a paper on a thermodynamic origin for the Newton force. There are superficial analogues to Verlinde's work. I have sent 3 pages to your Nordita email. l hope l am not wasting your time. Many thanks.claverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11969722227596214282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56032046078986246342015-02-06T18:03:52.724-05:002015-02-06T18:03:52.724-05:00L.E. Otto,
Alice and Bob are momentarily untangle...L.E. Otto,<br /><br />Alice and Bob are momentarily untangled.<br /><br />I am their unqualified spokesperson for this comment.<br /><br /> "So maybe it is just my frame of mind but try what I do my guitar music comes out too sweet and harmonic. Right Bob? - Otto"<br /><br />No theorist is expected to perform what they compose (theorize).<br /><br />That is for a hapless lot of low lifehushhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16176588791118304829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82562642705866315122015-02-06T17:07:44.822-05:002015-02-06T17:07:44.822-05:00I think this article is based on a total misunders...I think this article is based on a total misunderstanding of what the paper is trying to say. The paper is trying to say that the problems/ paradoxes with black holes occur because people try to investigate phenomena at scales at which the spacetime breaks down due to quantum gravitational effects. If one limits the scales at which one ask questions, then one obtains the correct answers.Islamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12767424847196281316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4197224442540351742015-02-06T16:17:49.329-05:002015-02-06T16:17:49.329-05:00Arun, you can look at
Figure 1 of http://arxiv.org...Arun, you can look at<br />Figure 1 of http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.0670<br />It is supposed to restart this year with sensitivity of <br />40-80 MpcShantanuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16322812456382858228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-68819729361406783952015-02-06T11:28:42.376-05:002015-02-06T11:28:42.376-05:00Because regardless of the theory of gravitation us...Because regardless of the theory of gravitation used (modification of GR) some gravitational waves are generated if the speed of the gravity is c then it would more sure to rely on this measure for now.<br />http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11434-012-5603-3nicolas pouparthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17722878242014554884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-69749769739485960302015-02-06T10:33:01.306-05:002015-02-06T10:33:01.306-05:00Arun: I think they're still upgrading, no? The...Arun: I think they're still upgrading, no? There's always this dance that every time somebody upgrades their detector, the better version is supposed to just find whatever they are looking for...Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-87478961177322714162015-02-06T09:49:27.039-05:002015-02-06T09:49:27.039-05:00Bee - different topic - what is the status of grav...Bee - different topic - what is the status of gravitational wave detection with LIGO? I remember visiting the LIGO lab at Caltech some 25 years ago. Seems like a long time for a lot of nothing.Arunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-20778619076620652782015-02-06T09:27:25.312-05:002015-02-06T09:27:25.312-05:00I do not understand how one can reject the SR at a...I do not understand how one can reject the SR at a certain scale since the SR is verified experimentally at any scale. In addition, the rejection of the SR imply to reject the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum or the Pythagorean theorem. To reject the constancy of the speed of light, we must reject the constancy of the vacuum permittivity and permeability vacuum or the reasoning of the nicolas pouparthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17722878242014554884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-36393752529879504752015-02-06T06:12:09.282-05:002015-02-06T06:12:09.282-05:00Zephir:
As usual, you're not making any sense...Zephir:<br /><br />As usual, you're not making any sense. First, you are saying I shouldn't rely on the author's statements (which I didn't even ask them for) and then complain that I summarized the paper. The title refers to the title of the phys.org piece. And please stop boring us to death with your theory of something. Can't you see that nobody is interested hearing about Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-25806541087259427642015-02-06T05:03:25.176-05:002015-02-06T05:03:25.176-05:00/* relying on the author’s own statements is never.../* relying on the author’s own statements is never good journalistic practice */<br /><br />The same applies to this blog also. Author of this study didn't say, that the black hole will not exist - so that such an interpretation has no place in title. He just says, that under situation when the event horizon will be fuzzy due to variable speed of gravity, then it will leak the light. In AWT Zephirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06010623752049244967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-58805996948216427792015-02-06T01:41:57.368-05:002015-02-06T01:41:57.368-05:00Robert, Otto:
I will delete all further off-topi...Robert, Otto: <br /><br />I will delete all further off-topic comments. This is not the place to discuss your personal solution-for-everything. Thanks,<br /><br />B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48018528422963470712015-02-05T22:20:14.467-05:002015-02-05T22:20:14.467-05:00My approach would be a bit different.
I would ask...My approach would be a bit different.<br /><br />I would ask for an explanation of the blatant hierarchical organization of nature.<br /><br />Then I would ask for an explanation for the obvious fact that the nature's hierarchy is highly stratified.<br /><br />Then I would ask why self-similarity is such a ubiquitous and fundamental property of nature.<br /><br />I would expect that the Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-68293820694703887672015-02-05T21:01:54.648-05:002015-02-05T21:01:54.648-05:00Perhaps we should start with the concept of n-dime...Perhaps we should start with the concept of n-dimensional spheres in a flat space having intrinsic chiral spin. We can also imagine Tori of progressive genus having a different and even sub orbits of distinct chiarilities. Between the two a circle of progressive chain codes over limited or unlimited projective space may form a minimum quantization (discrete grounding for continuous volume L. Edgar Ottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00525169618204198073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-17282878330066465052015-02-05T19:43:13.138-05:002015-02-05T19:43:13.138-05:00One thing is almost guaranteed.
We are going to c...One thing is almost guaranteed.<br /><br />We are going to continue to spin our wheels fruitlessly until someone comes along with a testable theory of principle, instead of all this Ptolemaic model-building, which as Maxwell put it, leaves us with "an unnatural and self-contradictory mass of rubbish."<br /><br />Does Helbig advocate dumpster-diving?Robert L. Oldershawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15396555790655312393noreply@blogger.com