Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2012

    created black holes in string theory, since somebody asked me: a brief paragraph explaining how the entropy-counting works and some references.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2019

    added pointer to today’s

    diff, v42, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2019

    What do you make of such papers? I guess one useful role is in ’normalising’ string theoretic research to show it’s done by physicists going about their business, looking for consistency checks, etc. Perhaps this study of the Subjective logic of physicists is useful to counter objections of pie-in-the-sky speculation.

    The odd thing is that your modal HoTT approach has presented the extraordinary prospect of M-theory being derivable by some process out of nothing, the kind of picture that a version of philosophy which has gone out of fashion might take delight in. What happened to the speculative philosopher who is enraptured by the current transformations wrought in mathematics and its foundations, and who looks to see its structures realised in the world as an Objective logic?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2019
    • (edited Apr 9th 2019)

    What do you make of such papers?

    The bits I have read are just what in more sane communities would have been offered by the authors of the original articles in the first place, namely some discussion of which assumptions are made and how things are thought to hang together, conceptually. I had written a text of this spirit in the nLab entry black holes in string theory a long time back, just much shorter (and maybe that’s what these authors read ;-).

    I take it your question is rather what to make of the fact that the hodgepodge network of plausibility arguments and consistency checks which Butterfield et al. faithfully review today is still very much the state of the art of the field. And yeah, that’s something which one would think more people would realize is more of an intriguing open problem than a final answer. In 50 years we will look back to the present era in string theory like the people after Newton looked back to the Natural Philosophy before, I am sure. Maybe that mindful review by Butterfield et. al can help bring that insight about. But I am not holding my breath. (Instead I am frantically typing some articles… :-)

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2019

    added pointer to

    diff, v46, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2019

    added pointer to

    • Sunjin Choi, Joonho Kim, Seok Kim, June Nahmgoong, Large AdS black holes from QFT (arxiv:1810.12067)

    diff, v46, current

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)