Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.
Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.
New printer friendly PO pages!
Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!
Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!
Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!
... see more
(propose a free ad)
Please use comments to point to previous work in this direction, and reviews to referee the accuracy of the paper. Feel free to edit this submission to summarise the paper (just click on edit, your summary will then appear under the horizontal line)
(Is this your paper?)
See also Physics Forums thread.
I think L. Susskind does not understand QM; that is why he freely pushes his logic to limits where this logic is not applicable any more since it belongs to another (the opposite, to tell the truth) physics. Classical deterministic things like separated objects, trajectories, and even a free space, etc., are inclusive (=some average) QM pictures; that is why they are deterministic. Otherwise everything is vague and this property is not compatible with deterministic GR (leaving alone that no QM problem has given the Newton law for two neutral macroscopic bodies so far).
My evaluations are: zero for originality (any crackpot can push his logic to "their (stupid) limits", so what?), and -1 for accuracy (for the same reason). Reading GR=QM is a waste of time, unfortunately.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Vladimir, but I really think Susskind understands QM much better than me.
@GuilioPrisco: Maybe you are right about you and L. S. But he speaks of two entangled and at the same time observed distant black holes. The latter property implies inclusive picture whereas the former one belongs to something before observation. Two distant entangled black holes are not such before observation. Watch R. Feynman lecture where he (too wordy, I admit) explains that we cannot say "a given phenomenon" before observing this as a phenomenon (J. Wheeler's statement, at about t=1:03 of the lecture).
Observing a BH doesn't mean getting measures of its quantum properties. In fact, all the document is about elaborated cases of observations.
LS begins with a "why not" and writes further "This may sound like a flight of fantasy ..." :) His lectures are great moments ; poetry opens the mind and gives always tracks to new ideas ... Even if I'm not convinced by the relevance of ER=EPR
@igael: You probably like mathematics and its logic. One can invent some objects and operate them in ones mind, but in physics everything is much more complicated. Objects in Physics have a limited meaning and this fact is described with inequalities. Physics always contains inequalities. But LS applies QM to macroscopic bodies, and it is only natural that nobody agrees with him. Pushing ideas beyond limits means not knowing or ignoring inequalities. That is why he looks silly to me.
@VladimirKalitvianski : There are many incredible postulates and LS takes a lot of freedom with accepted concepts. Ie , he gives too much credit to q-computing, perhaps revealing his idea about it. The holographic bulk dual has also difficulties in the way it is applied ( what are the counterparts of the laboratory and the bulk observer ).
I understand what you feel. But keep in mind that it's just brainstorming and not a curse. I see it like an attempt to find some obvious but yet misunderstood link betweeen QM and GR, hoping a kind of equivalence principle :)
user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required