No, I am saying the black hole information loss problem cannot be solved with existing methods, so throwing money at it is a waste of time. Look at the literature of the past 40 years to see that what I say is correct.
I have said this many times before, but since this is twitter, let me repeat it again: Physics is not math. There are several mathematically consistent solution to the problem. We would need observations to find out which one correctly describes nature. There are no observations.
And there will not be observations because the Hawking temperature of the known black holes is too low to see them evaporating. And even if we did see them evaporating, this would not tell us anything about information loss.
This btw are, needless to say, all facts that people in the community know perfectly well. It is utterly comical how disturbed they react when I point out the obvious conclusion namely: It is impossible to solve this problem with current methods, you are wasting your time.
I am not saying this for people in the community (who will ignore me anyway), but for science writers and non-experts who seem to actually believe headlines of the sort "problem solved". Hahaha.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here is something that should worry you. Each time I give a public lecture people come up to me and say they agree with me that building a bigger collider is currently a nonsense idea. It's a huge investment with little scientific benefit and basically no societal relevance 1/
I mostly get this from physicists of other disciplines (condensed matter physicists seem to feature prominently, but maybe just because there are many of them) but also from particle physicists who have left the field, both theoreticians and experimentalists 2/
Yet, there is not a single one of them on the public record willing to speak out. The reason I keep getting quoted by newspapers and magazines is simply THAT THEY CAN'T FIND ANYONE ELSE WILLING TO SPEAK OUT. 3/
While I agree that religion and science don't have to conflict with each other and can indeed complement each other, using male circumcision as an example for how religious practices have been "proven to be scientifically effective" is most unfortunate.
First, you don't need to circumcise boys at birth to prevent them from contracting sexually transmitted diseases much later in life (for the effectiveness of which the evidence is not particularly good).
Second, it ignores that the boys in question had no chance to consent on what is a mutilation of their body and that most of these circumcisions are done without pain control because that was (and to some extent still is) considered unnecessary, possibly leaving permanent trauma.
Curious find: A Google image search for "futuristic" returns almost exclusively images with blue/black color themes. How is that? Why isn't the future orange? Very puzzled about this.
Same thing if you search for "tech". Mostly black/blue (with the occasional blob of contrast color).
As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the first test of #Einstein's theory of General Relativity by deflection of light on the sun, let us not forget that 200 years ago the effect was thought to be unobservably small.
This estimate was possible because a similar effect should also take place in Newtonian gravity, just smaller by a factor of two. This was derived in 1801 by the German astronomer Johann Georg von Soldner.
Soldner was well aware that the effect he calculated was miniscule, but refused to apologize. He wrote:
"Incidentally I do not think it should be necessary for me to apologize that I publish this article even though the result indicates that the deviation is unobservably small."
The scientific mission of the Event Horizon Telescope is to capture an image of a black hole horizon. So far, we have indirect evidence for the existence of a black hole horizon, but have not actually “seen” one. 1/
You cannot really “see” a black hole, but you can see the way that a black hole wraps light around its horizon. It is a very strong lensing effect, not entirely unlike to the warped lensing that you can create with some photo apps. (Image: Artist's Impression of black hole) 2/