>>12901127>am i reading you right?No, you aren't. Postulate three says that the "To a distant observer, a black hole appears to be a quantum system with discrete energy levels." I don't have the formula here, Sabrina, but if you have a look you will see that the Heisenberg uncertainty guarantees that the macroscopic mega-object will appear to have a continuous spectrum of energies. For instance, although the Earth and its artificial satellites are indeed quantum objects, the orbits of the orbiting satellites do not appear to be quantized. The earth is too big for it to seem that way. This like how a person has a deBroglie wavelength but you can't do diffraction experiments on people because the wavelength is too small. The problem isn't that people don't have a deBroglie wavelength, they do, it's just that it would be stupid to formulate a paradox with a postulate wherein one must observes the interference of two people's deBroglie waves. That is completely stupid to think that the quantized wavelengths of a macroscopic person might be visible to someone, and the thing about the BH appearing to have discrete energies is much stupider. It could never happen. Sabrina, please make me a sandwich.
>all the postulates in AMPS are super reasonable I see that you missed my point that the relevance of a problem decreases with the number of unproven suppositions needed to demonstrate it. Four is a lot even if number three wasn't completely stupid! Also, #3 is completely stupid. Even if it wasn't, four is too many for the problem to be of much interest.
Polchinski is dead, I am glad to say, but if you see AMPS at a conference, ask them if were being stupid on purpose.
