Does John H. Schwarz now believe in Verlinde`s gravity?

[marcus]

... I was a bit enthusiastic that one more important string theorist would leave behind what I consider boring, repetitive, dull, excessively complex, full of dead end. etc, ideas. ...

When people people shift their research interest they don't always make a political declaration about it. They don't necessarily shift permanently or 100%. Or run a different flag up the mast. It can be subtle.

 

[Demystifier]

That sure got the paper some attention. Now I'll know when I submit my papers, I'll put Einstein as co-author. Genius, why didn't I think of it before?

I'll put Witten. Then it will be interesting to see who will attract more attention.

P.S. Is there a volunteer who would put Hawking? Just for the sake of experiment.

 

[Demystifier]

My guess is that the error was caused by Abhiram when he uploaded it to arxiv. He filled out some form wrong, put the wrong information in some box.

As it was the first paper written and submitted by Abhiram, the most likely possibility is that he thought that he was obliged to put Schwarz into the list of authors. Next time he will know.

 

[arivero]

That sure got the paper some attention. Now I'll know when I submit my papers, I'll put Einstein as co-author. Genius, why didn't I think of it before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpher–Bethe–Gamow_paper

 

[qsa]

He still has ideas---I wouldn't call them boring.

I am not sure what the fuss is all about. Since the paper seems to examine verlinde's theory in a very critical manner, also the author seems to try to prove the correctness of string theory in case verlinde's idea pan out (without contradicting string).

This is what I understood since I read the paper more carefully because it sort of answered my question in my "gravity in bound state" thread.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=432711 post #13

"Thank you for your response. the classical calculation is well known to me, but I guess I am not clear in my question. Since I am trying to get some connection between wavefunction(QM) and gravity I am more asking about the nature of QG. So when two waves overlap that is equivalent (or is it) to two particles sitting on top of each other, then shouldn't the particles gravities affect each other since their potential is of 1/r and r is going to zero (or maybe G going to 1). Or I guess the whole wavefunction must be taken into account. In this case you should see some effect if both are delta function sitting near each other. but the wave function must carry G somewhere (probably involving all constants but changing with distance). Any other ideas!"


see thumbnail (page 14 of the paper)


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1011/1011.4106v2.pdf