Fuzzball complementarity attempts to recover the classical intuition about freely falling into a black hole, and it does so through the rather counterintuitive idea that surface oscillations during a collision can mimic free fall. Do you think that counterintuitiveness is an unavoidable consequence of digging deep into the laws of nature? Is there any reason that the laws of nature need to “make sense” on an intuitive level? Explain your answer.
Just as we feel a beauty regarding an elegant mathematical solution, and we feel a beauty regarding the evolved efficiencies of the natural world, does not mean that there is any rational reason for the beauty, symmetry etc., but it does feel good when there is.
I didn’t realise this was the end of the presentation! – I just wanted to express Many Thanks to Professor Samir Mathur for such an interesting and complex subject delivered with such great clarity.
Some laws and models will be intuitive, some counter-intuitive, depending on their similarities with systems and behavior that humans observe on earth and that help form our intuition and established and familiar mental landscape.
This has been an interesting thought experiment. Fuzzballs Singularities Quanta all to describe a Microverse within the Universe, maybe once we understand the Universe we will be able to describe the Microverse.
You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.
Send this to a friend
We use cookies and other technologies to optimize site functionally, analyze website traffic, and share information with our service and analytics partners. To understand more about how we use cookies, visit our Cookie Policy. To understand more about who we are, how we process your information. and how best to contact us, visit our Privacy Policy.OK