What is the future of complexity theory in black-hole physics and string theory?

Question

I found the recent work by Hayden and Harlow and Susskind very fascinating.

I have also heard talks by Scott Aaronson about this emerging connection.

In particular this idea of understanding black-hole physics via quantum error correcting codes. (and hence expanders?).

How real is this? [...I am particularly interested since I have done a lot of studies in quantum/classical/string black-hole physics and I also work on mathematics of expanders..]

Some years from now will one be able to get opportunity/funding/faculty/post-doc positions to do research in this area?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-10-02 10:30 (UTC), posted by SE-user user6818

Comments

Are you asking about a thesis subject? Last year I had been following complexity lectures and it seems to me complexity studies cover a large part of theoretical studies starting from biophysics and ending in hep physics. So expertise in complexity per se seems to me a good bet, since many fields are open, so if it does not work in HEP theory other theoretical work will be open. ( I am also an experimentalist, and have put my bets on string theory :) )

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-10-02 10:31 (UTC), posted by SE-user anna v

---

This is a nonsense answer. The problem in the question is just the vague term "complexity theory", which includes computation theory and other things that are irrelevant for physics, and also quantum-computation ideas like entanglement and so on, which are all physics. If one specifies the exact term, one can get an exact answer. If one is talking about "complexity classes", "computation theory", and so on, the answer is "nothing". If one is talking about "entanglement distillation", then it is something, but no more than clarifying the exact map between the quantum description and the classical space time.

This answer is glib and jokey, and is not in the spirit of the site. Can you please, please, remove it?

---

@Ronmaimon

Dear Ron , if you noticed, the post is imported from physics.se.  My statement was given there,  a comment , not an answer,  mainly a question on why the question was asked (. i.e. for future employment possibilities? ) and addressing that. Not the physics content. Maybe you are unaware but there are theoretical people working with common  mathematics over a wide range of disciplines. Anyway it is fine if you delete my comment , it was not meant for this site, and  the option is to" hide" it, and then your comment will be left hanging in limbo.

---

@annav I think there's some miscommunication here: Ron was referring not to your comment, but to another (now deleted) possibly spam, two-word comment saying "Nobody knows".

---

Hi Anna, Yes Dimension10 is right, there is nothing wrong with your comment. Ron meant the two-word answer, which I converted into a comment ...

Answer 1

Quantum computation aside, which has error correction, and other great ideas borrowed from physics, one could very easily see advances in the theory of black holes, information loss, etc, to throw light on the subject of quantum computing. Notions of time, which are varied, in physics could still have motivation to people in complexity. Non linear dynamics and black holes with the notions of spacetime could also be viewed from the prism of complexity. Its an interesting bag of problems, that complexity could still find use in!