From: Eugene Leitl (Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de)
Date: Tue Dec 24 1996 - 01:45:37 MST
On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, John K Clark wrote:
> The Bekenstein Bound is thought by almost everybody to be true, because it
> just seems like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle expressed in a different
> way, however nobody has yet been able to formally prove it. There are several
> "proofs" floating around in the literature, but all of them are wrong,
> I think even Bekenstein would admit that.
Um, of course the "proof" floating around in Tipler's "The physics of
immortality" is just an outline of a proof (because a formal derivation
would go way beyond the scope of that book), but aren't the other ones
supposed to be rigorous proofs? John, since your mathematical/physical
capabilites are quite formidable, could you perhaps have a look at these
proofs in the original literature, and tell us what you think?
ciao,
'gene
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:55 MST