added pointer to today’s

- Nejc Čeplak, Roberto Emparan, Andrea Puhm, Marija Tomašević,
*The correspondence between rotating black holes and fundamental strings*[arXiv:2307.03573]

added pointer to today’s

- Ibrahima Bah, Pierre Heidmann,
*Geometric Resolution of Schwarzschild Horizon*[arXiv:2303.10186]

added pointer to today’s

- Behnam Pourhassan, Mubasher Jamil, Mir Faizal,
*Black Remnants from T-Duality*(arXiv:1912.09235)

completed publication data for the original articles:

Ashoke Sen,

*Extremal black holes and elementary string states*, Mod. Phys. Lett. A10: 2081-2094, 1995 (arXiv:hep-th/9504147)Andrew Strominger, Cumrun Vafa,

*Microscopic Origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy*, Phys. Lett. B379: 99-104, 1996 (arXiv:hep-th/9601029)

added pointer to today’s

- Lorenzo Pieri,
*Black Holes in String Theory*(arXiv:1911.11670)

added pointer to

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

added pointer to

- Alberto Zaffaroni,
*Lectures on AdS Black Holes, Holography and Localization*(arXiv:1902.07176)

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… :-)

]]>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?

]]>added pointer to today’s

Sebastian De Haro, Jeroen van Dongen, Manus Visser, Jeremy Butterfield,

*Conceptual Analysis of Black Hole Entropy in String Theory*(arXiv:1904.03232)Jeroen van Dongen, Sebastian De Haro, Manus Visser, Jeremy Butterfield,

*Emergence and Correspondence for String Theory Black Holes*(arXiv:1904.03234)

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