tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post110546081270179858..comments2019-10-03T09:09:50.831+02:00Comments on The Reference Frame: Nastase: RHIC produces black holesLuboš Motlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-1105492130823740972005-01-12T02:08:00.000+01:002005-01-12T02:08:00.000+01:00I predict that Lubos will soon write a paper using...I predict that Lubos will soon write a paper using quasinormal modes to prove that the ratio of the Nastase parameter to the Immirzi parameter is always precisely the log of the square root of 7.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-1105483476931494592005-01-11T23:44:00.000+01:002005-01-11T23:44:00.000+01:00Quantoken,
you wrote:
> Then you can not discuss ...Quantoken,<br /><br />you wrote:<br />> Then you can not discuss your dual space black hole <br />> using standard arguments <br /><br />Why not ?<br /><br />Greetings,<br />Wolfgang BeirlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-1105483014275260802005-01-11T23:36:00.000+01:002005-01-11T23:36:00.000+01:00Wolfgang said:
"you realize that the "black hole" ...Wolfgang said:<br />"you realize that the "black hole" lives in <br />dual space. It is already in the title "Dual black holes ..." Thus you cannot argue the way you do."<br /><br />Then you can not discuss your dual space black hole using standard arguments we use for regular black holes existing in 4-D spacetime, either. You can not use Hawkings arguments and formulas, which are good for regular blackholes living in the real 4-D spacetime world, not for your strange ones living in the "dual space".<br /><br />QuantokenQuantokenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08057876770160255308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-1105481442052043012005-01-11T23:10:00.000+01:002005-01-11T23:10:00.000+01:00Quantoken,
you realize that the "black hole" live...Quantoken,<br /><br />you realize that the "black hole" lives in <br />dual space. It is already in the title "Dual black holes ..."<br />Thus you cannot argue the way you do.<br /><br />Best regards,<br />Wolfgang BeirlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-1105481166665895992005-01-11T23:06:00.000+01:002005-01-11T23:06:00.000+01:00Lubos:
I am glad you are beginning to at leas...Lubos:<br /><br /> I am glad you are beginning to at least listen and reason, instead of simply deleting anything associated with the name "quantoken". So you are still hopeful, I think :-)<br /><br /> You said: "The equation 8 simply that the decrease of the entropy - the left hand side - is equal to the decrease of mass expressed as multiples of the lightest KK units - the entropy of one particle is assumed to be of order one, so to say."<br /><br /> If that interpretation of Equ. 8 is true, then the equation is wrong. We know the Hawking entropy is porportional to the surface area, which is porportional to the square of the radius, which is porportional to the mass. So for a black hole, the entropy is porportional to the mass squared, not proportional to the mass.Quantokenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08057876770160255308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-1105480523740438912005-01-11T22:55:00.000+01:002005-01-11T22:55:00.000+01:00Further, the author started with standard Hawking ...Further, the author started with standard Hawking Blackhole Temperature arguments, and end up with something totally ridiculous, by secretly replacing a few variables with something else that is totally unrelated.<br /><br />The presumed 176MeV temperature, if it were Hawking temperature, corresponds to a blackhole of roughly sixty million tons of mass. Such a small black have nothing to do with pion, or any presumed black hole pairs generated in any vacuum excitation, which should be at Planck Scale. See:<br /><br />http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html<br /><br />QuantokenQuantokenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08057876770160255308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-1105480323155520522005-01-11T22:52:00.000+01:002005-01-11T22:52:00.000+01:00Dear Quantoken,
I agree that the paper now looks ...Dear Quantoken,<br /><br />I agree that the paper now looks mostly as numerology, but I am not sure whether I agree with your specific criticism.<br /><br />The equation 8 simply that the decrease of the entropy - the left hand side - is equal to the decrease of mass expressed as multiples of the lightest KK units - the entropy of one particle is assumed to be of order one, so to say.<br /><br />Best<br />LubosLumohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17487263983247488359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-1105479673149534052005-01-11T22:41:00.000+01:002005-01-11T22:41:00.000+01:00The paper you cited:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/...The paper you cited:<br /> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501068<br />is a completely total crap!<br /><br />The derivations leading up to Equation (7) used nothing more than the standard arguments for a 4-D blackhole, and so equation (7) is still correct. The problem occurs during the transition from Equ. 7 to Equ. 8, during which the author used a big "IF" for which no reasoning is given:<br /><br />"...IF we have Equ. 8 with M1 the mass of KK (Kaluza-Klein) graviton...we get Equ. 8"<br /><br />I do not know where that IF came from and how come it is true. But to get Equ. 8 from Equ. 7, regardless what M1 is, it must depend on M, the mass of the blackhole, in a inverse proportional relationship. (Remember Rh, the black hole radius, is calculated by 2GM/C^2, so d(Rh^2) is proportional to M*dM.)<br /><br />So M1 definitely can not be a constant if Equ 8 is to be true. That is where the trouble starts. Equ. 9 and Equ. 20 are essentially the same, so we can skip the discussions in between. The author merely replaced M1, which is supposed to be inverse proportional to blacm hole mass M, and is so not a constant, with the average pion mass, which is a constant. No reasoning is given why he can replace variable in such an arbitrary way.<br /><br />So the whole thing is a totally illogical numerology crap. Since the Lubos string theory consistently gives predictions that Lubos will always erase any anti-string messages, I am going to cross post this message to other Blogs, before Lubos had a chance to erase it.<br /><br /><br />QuantokenQuantokenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08057876770160255308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-1105464201993691682005-01-11T18:23:00.000+01:002005-01-11T18:23:00.000+01:00One would think Lubos has found predictive quality...One would think Lubos has found predictive quality that we can now engage particular thought patterns with consistancy? Solitons, as Tachyon Condensation?? Owww spooky?:)<br /><br />It's true, Peter was comment one, but Lubos did not predict two comments?:) So maybe fifty fifty ,unless he had the ability to go back in time and change what could have appeared as prediction under the guise of editorial challenges?:)<br /><br />Anyway, I think Sean Carroll is posting a interesting comment about research and focused attention? Moving forward, to more focused dialogue about the differences of opinion can always be more enlightening if the motivation can be understood with regard to the direction you might want this science to go?:)<br /><br />Remember, the root of all evil?:)Platohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01554579710459395706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-1105463523341326372005-01-11T18:12:00.000+01:002005-01-11T18:12:00.000+01:00But wait a minute, I thought string/M theory was a...But wait a minute, I thought string/M theory was a completely, absolutely unique framework with no choices one could possibly make. Are you trying to tell me that there are actually lots and lots and lots of different possible string theories?Peter Woithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06232761993739122656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8666091.post-1105462464395263792005-01-11T17:54:00.000+01:002005-01-11T17:54:00.000+01:00Hi Lubos,
Glad to see that you've finally come ar...Hi Lubos,<br /><br />Glad to see that you've finally come around to the point of view that string theory is just a dual theory to QCD!<br /><br />PeterPeter Woithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06232761993739122656noreply@blogger.com