- #1
- 24,775
- 792
Urs Schreiber's allegations about the Ashtekar "Shadow states" paper
Urs has made serious allegations about the paper
"Quantum gravity, shadow states, and quantum mechanics"
by Abhay Ashtekar, Stephen Fairhurst, and Joshua Willis.
However I've not seen any place where he openly refers to the paper by title and named the authors! So I guess there have been vague hints and rumors and suggestions flying around, with no obvious attachment to substance. Several people besides myself seem to have been confused about what was being discussed.
I saw a stray reference to a license plate (gr-qc/0207106) and mistook it for some other 2002 paper, in the absence of identifying context, and Urs corrected me and said it was by Ashtekar. So then I knew. I don't ordinarily recognize papers by their arxiv numbers or my friend's cars by their license plates
Anyway, when you have serious criticisms of a particular paper, then, as Urs would doubtless be the first to point out, it is good scholarly practice to be open and explicit and public about it. So I have started a Ashtekar "Shadow states" thread and I hope Urs will post there and say exactly what he thinks is wrong or dubious about the paper.
Criticism is often extremely valuable and useful. My personal estimation of Urs is very high. I have the highest regard for his intelligence and expertise. Also a high regard for Ashtekar--who rates a thread of his own instead of being hidden in some closet of a Thomas Thiemann thread.
So I think it will most probably be very helpful to have all of Urs objections to this paper to be made clear and out in the open.
There is a particular reason why I think this could be especially interesting to see in the present, which I will explain in the next post.
Urs has made serious allegations about the paper
"Quantum gravity, shadow states, and quantum mechanics"
by Abhay Ashtekar, Stephen Fairhurst, and Joshua Willis.
However I've not seen any place where he openly refers to the paper by title and named the authors! So I guess there have been vague hints and rumors and suggestions flying around, with no obvious attachment to substance. Several people besides myself seem to have been confused about what was being discussed.
I saw a stray reference to a license plate (gr-qc/0207106) and mistook it for some other 2002 paper, in the absence of identifying context, and Urs corrected me and said it was by Ashtekar. So then I knew. I don't ordinarily recognize papers by their arxiv numbers or my friend's cars by their license plates
Anyway, when you have serious criticisms of a particular paper, then, as Urs would doubtless be the first to point out, it is good scholarly practice to be open and explicit and public about it. So I have started a Ashtekar "Shadow states" thread and I hope Urs will post there and say exactly what he thinks is wrong or dubious about the paper.
Criticism is often extremely valuable and useful. My personal estimation of Urs is very high. I have the highest regard for his intelligence and expertise. Also a high regard for Ashtekar--who rates a thread of his own instead of being hidden in some closet of a Thomas Thiemann thread.
So I think it will most probably be very helpful to have all of Urs objections to this paper to be made clear and out in the open.
There is a particular reason why I think this could be especially interesting to see in the present, which I will explain in the next post.
Last edited: