As things are, a speaker dropped out unexpectedly tomorrow morning (well, Waterloo in January does not make for a particularly attractive travel destination). And since I just finished a paper on the black hole information loss problem, one of the workshop organizers had the idea I could fill in the slot. I really tried but couldn't say "No". So now I am wondering what I will be talking about tomorrow morning. Meanwhile, I wish you all a happy weekend, and share with you the nicest Obamisms I have come across this week
- Inauguration Speech Word Tree
- Collection of Newspaper Covers reporting on the Inauguration
- Gigapan Photo of the Inauguration
And I recommend Joshua's interesting post What does it mean to be a digital President?
Hi Bee,
ReplyDeleteI really liked your new article. It's the best one so far. There are a few things there that remembered me a few things...
Have you considered that every fermion could be a kind of residual bag of gold?
Hi Bee,
ReplyDeleteI had my first read through your paper and although I get lost to some extent in the nomenclature I believe I get the gist of it. I’m hopeful that that your talk may be posted on PIRSA for that I may find that helpful. Perhaps later on you might post something here that is a little more novice friendly. That’s a polite way of saying for those of us that are a little thick:-)
One last thought, since this paper is coauthored with Smolin can’t you coerce him into helping deliver the talk, a duet so to speak. Of course this would require you both work on the two part harmony :-)
Best,
Phil
Hi Bee,
ReplyDelete“Conservative solutions to the black hole information problem”
This is one of those rare occasions where most physicists don’t wish as being found as the solution that all has just gone away :-)
Best,
Phil
Yes, your paper with Smolin is a good one, for two reasons: first, the emphasis on *reversibility*, reminding us that the problem really is a thermodynamic one in some sense; and second, the gentle reminder that claims that the solution is to be sought near the event horizon are "not conservative" --- which is a polite way of saying "completely ridiculous".
ReplyDeleteHowever, here are two answers to your [or Lee Smolin's] question, namely: why hasn't the obvious solution [essentially, baby universes born inside black holes, as in cosmic natural selection] been followed up? The first reason is that nobody really knows *how* to follow it up! The second, and much better, reason, is that there are very good reasons to think that baby universes [of this kind, ie born inside black holes] won't be like ours --- they won't begin in a state of low entropy. So it's hard to see what use they are for explaining anything in *our* universe, apart from solving the information loss problem.
ps: as I said in your "monster" post, there are reasons to think that bags of gold don't exist in string theory. So that is an argument against remnants from a string point of view.
pps: You only mentioned Horowitz and Maldacena in passing, but I think that their idea deserves a lot more attention. It has been generally dismissed for very inadequate reasons.
Hi Daniel:
ReplyDeleteI am glad you like the new paper. Regarding the fermions, this is a very old idea that somebody rediscovers every ten years or so. It is not really clear to me what problem it is supposed to solve?
Best,
B.
Hi Phil,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry you found the nomenclature confusing. I really found it made the explanation clearer. I just posted a brief summary of the paper, please don't hesitate to ask if something remains unclear. Best,
B.
Hi Pope:
ReplyDeleteI have copied your comment over to the new post about the paper, I hope you don't mind. Here, it would only get lost in the course of time. I will reply at the other thread. I like your pseudonym btw, do you offer maledictions? Best,
B.
Hey Bee, I'm sure most scientists World-wide are happy to see incurious George go and Obama the intellectual in the US White House. (And about social and public interest issues as well.)
ReplyDeleteThanks for the Gigapan, that is great. Heh, here is Clarence Thomas sleeping:
http://www.gigapan.org/viewConversation.php?id=43219
Here's my Obamism, first on the Internet in entirety per Google:
The triumph of hope and change over fear and greed.
I have copied your comment over to the new post about the paper, I hope you don't mind.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
I like your pseudonym btw, do you offer maledictions?
Oh yes, very freely. Particularly to the numerous sinners I encounter when driving....
Hi Pope Maledict XVI,
ReplyDelete“Oh yes, very freely. Particularly to the numerous sinners I encounter when driving....”
So your pseudonym is to be taken as the transitive verb and not the adjective then. Often I have found myself in the adjective position. Your closing should then be as follows:
^&^%$%^$#,
Phil :-)
Dear Bee,
ReplyDeleteoh, it was as a classical talk with chalk and blackboard, that's impressing :-)
Cheers, Stefan
Hi Stefan
ReplyDelete“oh, it was as a classical talk with chalk and blackboard, that's impressing :-)”
Yes, impressive and most certainly classic. In the days of powerpoint, light pens and digital projection it’s practically a lost art. Hell I was impressed at the Penrose lecture I attended that he used only an overhead (transparency) projector through the whole thing. However, in as it was a public lecture most were left disappointed. For those at such events my suggestion is they sell popcorn:-)
Thanks for the link.
Best,
Phil
Hi Stefan, Phil,
ReplyDeleteThere were actually several blackboard talks at this workshop. In my case I have to tell you the only reason for this was that I simply didn't have time to put together some slides. I have certainly given better talks than this, I myself found it somewhat confused. I usually know better what arguments I want to make in which order. Best,
B.
Hi Pope:
ReplyDeleteWould you be so kind to maledict all the spammers that make the internet such an awfully annoying place? I really think they are a great evil in this world and deserve it. Best,
B.
Hi Bee,
ReplyDeleteYes in as you were called to duty at the last minute I thought as much, yet you soldiered on. I’m not actually complaining about visual aids, it when the sizzle becomes more important then the steak that I have problems with; or for the vegetarians more crunch then celery :-)
Anyway, I find it all very interesting as it has drawn many of your peers into the fray. In truth though much of this goes right over my head yet that in itself presents a challenge. For instance that last comment where Moshe responded to Lee I seemed to gather that Moshe is resricting information return as a local phenomena while suggesting you and Lee are taking from a non local standpoint. To bad we can’t have J.S. Bell as a referee; no on second thought he’d just represent being yet another combatant.
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil,
ReplyDeleteI think you got that right, but I should warn you that the way you use the word 'local' here as the opposite of 'global' could lead to misunderstandings. The word 'local' in physics has a very precice meaning beyond what you were expressing that wasn't content of that discussion. Best,
B.
Hi Bee,
ReplyDelete“The word 'local' in physics has a very precise meaning beyond what you were expressing that wasn't content of that discussion.”
Is that in reference to that in the standard view there is considered nothing non local about QM, or rather what the relativistic consequences bring, ie. worm holes, white holes and such?
Best,
Phil
Hi Phil,
ReplyDeleteYes. What I meant to say is that not global does not necessarily mean local. It's somewhat like the USA isn't the whole world, but it's not a village either. Best,
B.
"Hi Pope:
ReplyDeleteWould you be so kind to maledict all the spammers that make the internet such an awfully annoying place?"
Dear Spammers of the World:
You can all go to hell.
In the meantime, please say 3 billion Our Fathers and 4 billion Hail Marys.
Hi Pope,
ReplyDeleteThanks :-) I guess that will keep them busy for some while. In the spammer's hell, I imagine you have to read viagra ads, p- and b-enlargement offers, and date-hotline emails until the end of time. Best,
B.
Hm, how long does it take to send out 3 billion "Our Fathers" and 4 billion "Hail Marys" as spam mails? Cannot be that long ;-)
ReplyDelete