Jim Graber
Apr27-04, 03:52 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n\n\nbaez@galaxy.ucr.edu (John Baez) wrote in message news:<c6cf1r\\$lup\\$1@glue.ucr.edu>...\n\n> Opinions vary widely here; this is a key open problem in\n> quantum gravity, without much to guide us. It\'s called the\n> "black hole information loss problem":\n>\n> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/info_loss.html\n>\n> Sometimes really frustrated physicists call it the black hole\n> information loss "paradox", but it\'s not really a logical paradox.\n>\n> Here\'s a copy of the bet that Preskill made with Hawking and Thorne\n> about this puzzle in 1997:\n>\n> http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/info_bet.html\n\nThe FAQ above still says "Warren Anderson 1996". Isn\'t it time\nsomeone updated the FAQ? Certainly something worth mentioning has\nhappened in the last 8 years.\n\nFor instance, Mathur and co-workers claim to have solved this issue\nand say Hawking and Thorne should pay off Preskill.\n\nMaybe we need a multisided FAQ expressing the various opinions.\nAnyhow, I\'m ready to read something new that\'s a little less technical\nthan some of the original papers on gr-qc or quant-ph.\n\nFinal silly threat: If no one smarter than me does it, maybe I\'ll\nhave to try updating the FAQ myself. Of course, I move fairly\nslowly, so don\'t hold your breath.\n\nHow bout it, Wizards and Sorcerers, what\'s the latest word?\n\nTIA Jim Graber\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>baez@galaxy.ucr.edu (John Baez) wrote in message news:<c6cf1r$lup$1@glue.ucr.edu>...
> Opinions vary widely here; this is a key open problem in
> quantum gravity, without much to guide us. It's called the
> "black hole information loss problem":
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/info_loss.html
>
> Sometimes really frustrated physicists call it the black hole
> information loss "paradox", but it's not really a logical paradox.
>
> Here's a copy of the bet that Preskill made with Hawking and Thorne
> about this puzzle in 1997:
>
> http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/info_bet.html
The FAQ above still says "Warren Anderson 1996". Isn't it time
someone updated the FAQ? Certainly something worth mentioning has
happened in the last 8 years.
For instance, Mathur and co-workers claim to have solved this issue
and say Hawking and Thorne should pay off Preskill.
Maybe we need a multisided FAQ expressing the various opinions.
Anyhow, I'm ready to read something new that's a little less technical
than some of the original papers on gr-qc or quant-ph.
Final silly threat: If no one smarter than me does it, maybe I'll
have to try updating the FAQ myself. Of course, I move fairly
slowly, so don't hold your breath.
How bout it, Wizards and Sorcerers, what's the latest word?
TIA Jim Graber
> Opinions vary widely here; this is a key open problem in
> quantum gravity, without much to guide us. It's called the
> "black hole information loss problem":
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/info_loss.html
>
> Sometimes really frustrated physicists call it the black hole
> information loss "paradox", but it's not really a logical paradox.
>
> Here's a copy of the bet that Preskill made with Hawking and Thorne
> about this puzzle in 1997:
>
> http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/info_bet.html
The FAQ above still says "Warren Anderson 1996". Isn't it time
someone updated the FAQ? Certainly something worth mentioning has
happened in the last 8 years.
For instance, Mathur and co-workers claim to have solved this issue
and say Hawking and Thorne should pay off Preskill.
Maybe we need a multisided FAQ expressing the various opinions.
Anyhow, I'm ready to read something new that's a little less technical
than some of the original papers on gr-qc or quant-ph.
Final silly threat: If no one smarter than me does it, maybe I'll
have to try updating the FAQ myself. Of course, I move fairly
slowly, so don't hold your breath.
How bout it, Wizards and Sorcerers, what's the latest word?
TIA Jim Graber