There is an 8-page paper that does not look terribly hard that I would like to read with other interested people Quantum Geometry and Black Hole Entropy Ashtekar, Baez, Corichi, Krasnov (1997) http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/9710007 [Broken] The number 97-10-007 means 1997, October, 007-th paper of October. There has been an interesting followup to this paper recently. John Swain (May 2003) has proposed a form of the Pauli exclusion principle involving area http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0305073 [Broken] Swain is an experimental high energy physicist who works at CERN, does cosmic ray astrophysics, and teaches physics at Boston's Northeastern University. At CERN he is on two LEP projects ("L3" and "CMS"). His PhD is U. Toronto 1990. It intrigues me that such a hep experimentalist should be getting interested in Loop gravity and suggesting an extension of Pauli exclusion (or "spin-statistics" theorem) to area. I visited his homepage to try to understand better http://www.physics.neu.edu/faculty/swain.html [Broken] Should we be expecting that in future we will hear about the "Swain-Pauli exclusion principle" Anyway the ABCK paper is seminal---it holds potential for further interesting development. And it is quite short---8 pages. It derives the entropy/area formula for all black hole cases. And seems to suggest that in the picture where states of geometry are "polymers"-----networks with astronomical numbers of segments which carry half-integer or integer spin---that the integer spin (especially spin = 1) punctures of the area predominate! So it answers one question (S = A/4, entropy is 1/4 times area) but raises another. Why should spin=1 predominate? Swain says that this may happen "for much the same reason that photons lead to macroscopic classically observable fields while electrons do not." His paper is also short---just 7 pages. I guess to put it in the most primitive terms, you can have a coherent flash of light where a bunch of photons are getting together and acting almost like one big photon and you can see this flash. But you can not have a coherent ball of electrons getting together and behaving like one big electron. They are individualistic like Paris drivers as compared with LA traffic. They can be in a cloud but each one must have his own individual track or motion-state. It is still too early to know what to make of Swain's 2003 paper. Altho does seem interesting. I think the thing to do is try to understand the basic paper ABCK 1997 or one of the other papers that repeat the main result if they give more explanation and are easier to understand.