I stopped working on black hole information loss

Re:I stopped working on black hole information loss by a9h74j on Saturday April 23, 2022 @09:05PM (#31140290)

Fun fact: When I was in a highly respected grad school in the 1980s (multiple Nobel Prize winners in the department), the QFT course was presented in such an obscure way, I stopped attending lectures, and I doubt anyone passed. The next year under "QFT" they taught Ashcroft -- i.e. a Solid State Physics course. That way requirements were met.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I stopped working on black hole information loss by oefrha on Saturday April 23, 2022 @10:24PM (#31140732)

I took QFT in college and then grad school in two of the leading institutions in HEP. I can’t say the instruction was very enlightening in either place. Whichever path you take (not sure what you had in the 80s, I’m thinking of Peskin & Schroeder / Schwartz / Weinberg, maybe even supposedly easier textbooks like Nutshell) it’s just a very dense subject.

Now, GR or at least the core of it is a lot easier as long as you’re mathematically prepared for differential geometry.

Btw, I took particle physics from the Peskin in Peskin & Schroeder when I was an undergrad. Everyone in the class (like four of us by the third week?) was super duper lost by midterm.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I stopped working on black hole information loss by paulpauper on Saturday April 23, 2022 @10:44PM (#31140823)

yeah like this for anything. String theory is easy if you're mathematically prepared by being a field's medalist

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I stopped working on black hole information loss by oefrha on Saturday April 23, 2022 @11:03PM (#31140929)

Having attended many IAS talks, I don’t think string theory is easy for the likes of Ed Witten.

[ Parent | on HN ]