tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post115285184498123659..comments2020-11-29T02:07:43.911-05:00Comments on Information Processing: Physical limits on information processingSteve Hsuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1153188139465282492006-07-17T22:02:00.000-04:002006-07-17T22:02:00.000-04:00Thanks for the reply. I did BJJ for a little while...Thanks for the reply. I did BJJ for a little while, but since moving to Oxford haven't been able to find anywhere to do it.Legacy Userhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16498771313329072350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1153145277414300552006-07-17T10:07:00.000-04:002006-07-17T10:07:00.000-04:00Hi Joe,Thanks for your interest in the paper. You ...Hi Joe,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your interest in the paper. You can email me directly, which will probably get faster response than a comment here.<BR/><BR/>I don't need to neglect black holes as they simply saturate the bound.<BR/><BR/>Regarding small volumes (and quantum gravity), the hoop conjecture doesn't necessarily apply to very small (Planckian) volumes, as it is derived in the semiclassical Steve Hsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1153113259845657682006-07-17T01:14:00.000-04:002006-07-17T01:14:00.000-04:00Hi Steve,I've just read the preprint and I have a ...Hi Steve,<BR/><BR/>I've just read the preprint and I have a few question. I hope you don't mind me asking it here rather than emailing you directly.<BR/><BR/>The first is whether you are justified in deglecting all black holes, even those which will evaporate over the course of the calculation? Is there a simple justification for this that I am missing?<BR/><BR/>The second is whether there is Legacy Userhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16498771313329072350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1152903261441755112006-07-14T14:54:00.000-04:002006-07-14T14:54:00.000-04:00Oppenheimer purportedly could never get the 2's an...Oppenheimer purportedly could never get the 2's and pi's right. Here we just admit that the bound is only accurate at the order of magnitude level (or should be thought of as a bound on the scaling behavior). Nobody knows the numerical factor in the hoop conjecture, other than it is probably of order one, so there is no point in carrying the other O(1) coefficients through to the end.<BR/><BR/>Steve Hsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1152901532215129772006-07-14T14:25:00.000-04:002006-07-14T14:25:00.000-04:00I once heard a Feynman story, some guy went up to ...I once heard a Feynman story, some guy went up to him after a QFT lecture and said "I understand everything except the factors of 2 pi" and Feynman puportedly replied "Buddy, then you don't understand nothin!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1152897295221647692006-07-14T13:14:00.000-04:002006-07-14T13:14:00.000-04:00Interesting... I wonder what is the relation with ...Interesting... I wonder what is the relation with <BR/><BR/>http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0507262Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1152882061949415462006-07-14T09:01:00.000-04:002006-07-14T09:01:00.000-04:00As I wrote in the paper, I'm not keeping track of ...As I wrote in the paper, I'm not keeping track of O(1) factors, mainly because the hoop conjecture isn't formulated more precisely than that.Steve Hsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02428333897272913660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1152859213550865302006-07-14T02:40:00.000-04:002006-07-14T02:40:00.000-04:00actually it's sqrt(2*pi) :)actually it's sqrt(2*pi) :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5880610.post-1152854220161167812006-07-14T01:17:00.000-04:002006-07-14T01:17:00.000-04:00You missed a factor of root(pi) in equation 2.You missed a factor of root(pi) in equation 2.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com