@abbenm He was, however, wrong about anti-war books being like anti-glacier books.
We're doing a pretty good job eliminating glaciers
Seeing this reminded me of a physics idea I need to plumb: https://scirate.com/arxiv/1609.03560
I doubt that the "build spacetime from quantum entanglement" crowd are really tapping into deep features of quantum theory. If you can do their "holographic quantum code" thing with qutrit stabilizer codes, then you can reproduce everything in a fundamentally classical theory (Gottesman--Knill). So, it may be fashionable, but I suspect it is not all that deep.
Today in fundamentally meaningless academic metrics: According to Google Scholar, 2017 just beat 2016 as my most citation-gaining year ever.
With three more citations to this paper, my h-index would level up: https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.01426
(ponders people I could bribe)
I distrust any claimed solution to a conceptual issue in quantum gravity that relies upon AdS/CFT duality, or gauge/gravity duality more generally. But that's me: I'm a loner. A rebel.
The definition of "to quantize" employed by essentially all attempts to develop a theory of quantum gravity relies on an understanding that was available to Dirac in 1926. This theory was devised to explain the colors of light emitted by hot gases in glass tubes, and it worked very well for that, and for many problems thereafter --- but that's no guarantee it will hold when we try to revise the very meaning of time itself.
I bet there's a fried-dough vendor looking at this crowd and going, "GOD FUCKING DAMMIT"
I believe I've never said this before, but: I completely, 100% agree with Linux Torvalds here. Without let or reservation.
Physicist. Quantum foundations, especially QBism and QBist reconstructions of quantum theory. I like climbing too.
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!