• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

203 submissions , 161 unreviewed
5,007 questions , 2,163 unanswered
5,342 answers , 22,657 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
815 active unimported users
More ...

  Dear Qubitzers, GR=QM

+ 1 - 0
+ 0 - 0
Referee this paper: arXiv:1708.03040 by Leonard Susskind

Please use comments to point to previous work in this direction, and reviews to referee the accuracy of the paper. Feel free to edit this submission to summarise the paper (just click on edit, your summary will then appear under the horizontal line)

(Is this your paper?)

requested Sep 25, 2017 by Giulio Prisco (190 points)
submission not yet summarized

paper authored Aug 10, 2017 to hep-th by  (no author on PO assigned yet) 
  • [ no revision ]

    I think L. Susskind does not understand QM; that is why he freely pushes his logic to limits where this logic is not applicable any more since it belongs to another (the opposite, to tell the truth) physics. Classical deterministic things like separated objects, trajectories, and even a free space, etc., are inclusive (=some average) QM pictures; that is why they are deterministic. Otherwise everything is vague and this property is not compatible with deterministic GR (leaving alone that no QM problem has given the Newton law for two neutral macroscopic bodies so far).

    My evaluations are: zero for originality (any crackpot can push his logic to "their (stupid) limits", so what?), and -1 for accuracy (for the same reason). Reading GR=QM is a waste of time, unfortunately.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts Vladimir, but I really think Susskind understands QM much better than me.

    @GuilioPrisco: Maybe you are right about you and L. S. But he speaks of two entangled and at the same time observed distant black holes. The latter property implies inclusive picture whereas the former one belongs to something before observation. Two distant entangled black holes are not such before observation. Watch R. Feynman lecture where he (too wordy, I admit) explains that we cannot say "a given phenomenon" before observing this as a phenomenon (J. Wheeler's statement, at about t=1:03 of the lecture).

    Observing a BH doesn't mean getting measures of its quantum properties. In fact, all the document is about elaborated cases of observations.

    LS begins with a "why not" and writes further "This may sound like a flight of fantasy ..." :) His lectures are great moments ; poetry opens the mind and gives always tracks to new ideas ... Even if I'm not convinced by the relevance of ER=EPR

    @igael: You probably like mathematics and its logic. One can invent some objects and operate them in ones mind, but in physics everything is much more complicated. Objects in Physics have a limited meaning and this fact is described with inequalities. Physics always contains inequalities. But LS applies QM to macroscopic bodies, and it is only natural that nobody agrees with him. Pushing ideas beyond limits means not knowing or ignoring inequalities. That is why he looks silly to me.

    @VladimirKalitvianski : There are many incredible postulates and LS takes a lot of freedom with accepted concepts. Ie , he gives too much credit to q-computing, perhaps revealing his idea about it. The holographic bulk dual has also difficulties in the way it is applied ( what are the counterparts of the laboratory and the bulk observer ).

    I understand what you feel. But keep in mind that it's just brainstorming and not a curse. I see it like an attempt to find some obvious but yet misunderstood link betweeen QM and GR, hoping a kind of equivalence principle :)

    Your Review:

    Please use reviews only to (at least partly) review submissions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
    To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
    Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
    This is the review box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
    Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
    Your name to display (optional):
    Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
    Anti-spam verification:
    If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
    Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
    To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

    user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

    Your rights