PDF | On Aug 20, , Hilton Ratcliffe and others published Review: The Black Hole War by Leonard Suskind. Black Holes, Information, and the String Theory Revolution. In the case The quantum theory of black holes, with or without strings, is far from. the concluding topic for the first edition—was similarly undeveloped. Galactic Dynamics begins with an observational intro- duction that is broader in scope than.
|Language:||English, Spanish, German|
|ePub File Size:||25.82 MB|
|PDF File Size:||20.14 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Regsitration Required]|
The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics. Home · The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen. Editorial Reviews. From Bookmarks Magazine. Cosmology has been sexy since Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, and Stephen Hawking stormed onto the scene. The Black Hole War. Leonard Susskind. Comments will be given first and then questions about the more substantive aspects of the book.
Also there are short asides on religion, politics, bits of amusing cultural criticism, and other non-scientific topics. George, I think you misunderstood Lecture 1. I was somewhat disappointed in his adamant disbelief in God, mostly just because he bothered bringing it up at all. We don't know and probably will never know. Chapter 11 - Particle collisions are described by an S or scattering matrix, which is reversible. An absolutely fascinating recounting of the process to reconcile our understanding of Einstein's General Relativity and gravity with Quantum Mechanics and the surprising discoveries in String Theory that made it possible. T' Hooft speculates that the spectrum of particles extends beyond the Planck mass in the form of black holes.
Does such an intelligent person actually believe that kind of logic? He says he at war with Hawking! Especially when you compare it to the hyper-polite debate the Susskind had with Smolin on edge. Susskind is not actually at war with Hawking, it is just that Hawking is better known than Susskind and Susskind wants to have his name associated with him.
Multiverse is a logically allowed, but cheap explanation for the problems of physics. There are no successful non-cheap explanations I know. I do not think I am wrong. This is something no real scientist could ever do. He has lost the battle for credibility in scientific light — his thinking is clearly not lucid.
His statement is in no way related to physics it was a comment about human evolution or design as he says is an acceptable alternative view to evolution. He clearly enjoys trying to be provocative and outrageous. Anyway, people can watch the video segments involved and make up their own minds, but enough already about this one.
Is it constructed by his path integral formulation of quantum mechanics, his theory of quantum electrodynamics, different from all classical sandwiches because of quantum computation, or extremely small as per his invention of nanotechnology? The Feynman sandwich on the largest number of shelves is a volume 2 of the Lecture Notes on Physics sandwiched between a volume 1 and a volume 3.
All that I remember was the sandwich he had the owner of the topless bar in Pasadena add to the booze menu, after the City shut it down. That was a ham and cheese sandwich. When the city tried enforcing the anti-topless-bar ordinance, the owner could now say: By multiverse I am sure you mean the Anthropic Principle.
But there are certainly much better ideas than this, for example, Cosmological Natural Selection, as explained by Smolin, Dawkins and others. Susskind knows the arguments. The multiverse does not necessarily mean the anthropic principle.
In fact your example, cosmic natural selection, is a dynamical non-anthropic selection principle in the multiverse. But as it stands, it is more wishful thinking than something concrete.
I thought somebody might make that point. Not you specifically somebody , but somebody! Yes there are many proposals for why the universe is the way it is, and terms such as multiverse may potentially be ambiguous, although usually the context makes it pretty clear what is meant, as was the case above. Sorry, I am not sure I know any. But nothing that seems to hold promise for anything concrete including your favorite cosmic natural selection.
But this might be just like field theory: Its through experiments, not theory, that we fix parameters. Unfortunately, this is an era where experiments are hard. Is he describing something conventional and common knowledge here? Sure, the underlying questions are deep, and Hawking, Susskind and many others have made important contributions, but QT and GR have not been unified, and nothing has been resolved or proved here.
I am finding it extremely interesting. Susskind is funny, explains things very clearly. So far, I am about half-way through, I am enjoying it very much. Highly recommended. Reviews Errata. Not Even Wrong. Skip to content.
Home Frequently Asked Questions. Instead of breathless promotion of string theory as a unified theory, here he is cautious about this, emphasizing repeatedly that he is just invoking string theory as a presumably consistent framework for resolving conceptual problems raised by quantum gravitational effects of black holes: He even notes that: He ends not with triumphant claims of victory in his war, but with an appropriate description of the current state of fundamental theory: This entry was posted in Book Reviews.
Bookmark the permalink. June 23, at 8: To whom it may concern, I realize that this is a bold question but I dare ask it anyway: Peter Woit says: June 23, at Observer, The questions about black holes being studied here have nothing to do with currently feasible astrophysical measurements.
Bee says: June 24, at 5: Hi Peter, Thanks for the review! Best, B. June 24, at 8: Christine says: June 24, at 9: At the end of this interesting news , one reads: Professor R says: June 24, at Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Peter, With all due respect, I disagree with your reply: David P says: Dr Susskind explains how physicists think about information theory: From Entanglement to Black Holes http: June 25, at 4: As Susskind depicts in his book, The Black Hole War was a "genuine scientific controversy" between scientists favoring an emphasis on the principles of relativity against those in favor of quantum mechanics.
Sean M. Carroll in the Wall Street Journal praised the book for successfully explaining the topic, despite the difficulty of the subject, in a way that lay readers could understand.
Carroll writes that the book contains a "wealth of anecdotes", and that Susskind's "wit and storytelling abilities From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The Black Hole War: Hachette Inc.
Retrieved 5 August Discover Magazine. Retrieved 6 August Ars Technica. Wall Street Journal. New York TImes. Los Angeles Times. New Scientist. Washington Post.