- 24,753
- 795
I'm glad you got to hear the rest of the talk, including the Q&A towards the end around minute 60. You have a really good question to write email to Bianchi about.fzero said:I listened to the rest of the talk, and to the answers to Wen and Gurau's questions a couple of times...
...
Do you have some more illuminating definition of what he's calling intrinsic and extrinsic geometry? It looks like the state ##|\Omega\rangle## that he uses in his density matrix is presumably the state composed of the "intrinsic" degrees of freedom forming the horizon. So how would the statistical mechanics compute some other degrees of freedom?
I'm sure he would appreciate interest from physics colleagues and would be happy to clarify the distinction.
Relevant links in case anyone else is reading the thread:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5122
and in the hour-long colloquium talk+QA
http://pirsa.org/12050053/ [video]
Physicsmonkey already earlier in this thread had a question that he wrote to Bianchi about and quickly got a reply. It was back near the start of thread, I forget exactly where.
Yeah, it was on the second page of the thread, here:
Among other things this PhMo post reminds me of the nice point of courtesy that one does not quote someone's email without first asking permission, but one can paraphrase points which are treated as common knowledge. It seems like the right way for someone at advanced academic level to get clarification. I hope, if you write Bianchi about this you will share the main points of his reply with us as PhMo did.Physics Monkey said:I reached out to bianchi for clarification about his area formula. In the interest of keeping his privacy, I will just summarize the main points of his brief reply that are apparently common knowledge.
In short, both \sqrt{j(j+1)} and j are acceptable area operators (they differ by an operator ordering ambiguity that vanishes as \hbar \rightarrow 0 (which I guess here means something like j \rightarrow \infty as fzero and others suggested).
The two criteria for an area operator are apparently 1) that its eigenvalues go to j in the large j limit and 2) that its eigenvalue vanish for j=0.
More systematically, bianchi is using a Schwinger oscillator type representation where we have two operators a_i and the spins are \vec{J} = \frac{1}{2} a^+ \vec{\sigma} a. The total spin of the representation can be read off from the total number N = a_1^+ a_1 + a_2^+ a_2 = 2j. On the other hand, you can work out J^2 for yourself to find J^2 = \frac{1}{4}( N^2 + 2N) which one easily verifies gives J^2 = j(j+1). Thus by |\vec{L}| bianchi appears to mean N/2.
It is again interesting to see this kind of representation appearing in a useful way since it is quite important in condensed matter.
I should probably not interject my own perception of this as it might only cause confusion but, that said, I would like to comment.
Entropy can only be defined with an implied/explicit observer. I believe the idea of an HORIZON is also observer-dependent. If one generalizes and gets away from designating a particular observer, the mathematical language will nevertheless indicate a class or family of observers which share the horizon.
Bianchi develops the Loop BH entropy in a way that seems to me clearly aware of the observer at each stage, although he eventually is able to generalize and cancel out dependence on any particular class or family.
This is in contrast to how I remember the Loop treatment of BH entropy back in the 1990s. I could well be wrong--not having checked back and reviewed those earlier LQG papers. But as I recall it was not so clear, with them, where the observer was and what he was looking at and measuring.
The analysis, as I recall, was done more in a conceptual vacuum. So one was looking at states only of the BH horizon ("intrinsic") without any surrounding geometric or dynamically interacting ("extrinsic") context.
I think Bianchi is going deeper, imagining more, including more in his analysis. I like the fact that he has an actual quantum THERMOMETER with which the observer a little ways outside the horizon can measure the temperature. Stylistically I like the concrete detail in the Colloquium slide where the coffee mug falls in and a new FACET of the quantum state of the horizon is created. The whole treatment AFAICS is deeper, more concrete, more interactive than what I remember from the 1990s papers.
But this is just my personal take. To get a satisfactory answer to your question about the precise meaning of the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction I would guess requires an email to Bianchi. Unless Physicsmonkey or the likes thereof care to explain.
Last edited: