That was the problem we had to solve. In order to count microstates, you need a microscopic theory. Boltzmann had one–the theory of molecules. We needed a microscopic theory for black holes that had to have three characteristics: One, it had to include quantum mechanics. Two, it obviously had to include gravity, because black holes are the quintessential gravitational objects. And three, it had to be a theory in which we would be able to do the hard computations of strong interactions. I say strong interactions because the forces inside a black hole are large, and whenever you have a system in which forces are large it becomes hard to do a calculation.
The old version of string theory, pre-1995, had these first two features. It includes quantum mechanics and gravity, but the kinds of things we could calculate were pretty limited. All of a sudden in 1995, we learned how to calculate things when the interactions are strong. Suddenly we understood a lot about the theory. And so figuring out how to compute the entropy of black holes became a really obvious challenge. I, for one, felt it was incumbent upon the theory to give us a solution to the problem of computing the entropy, or it wasn't the right theory. Of course we were all gratified that it did.
I mean sure we can say to ourselves, "that one day I was very ignorant" and I had all these speculative ideas about the "Golden Ratio," but then, I learnt the math and the truth of it all?
But while we were being crazy......?:) Ahem!
Namagiri, the consort of the lion god Narasimha. Ramanujan believed that he existed to serve as Namagiri´s champion - Hindu Goddess of creativity. In real life Ramanujan told people that Namagiri visited him in his dreams and wrote equations on his tongue.
In "past life bleed throughs," it was very important to realize that while speaking in context of "overlapping," the underlying archetecture allowed for expression of those different interpretive assignments I had given. These were significant for me, because it help me to realize the "mapping" that we can unconsciously have revealled in such "experience dream/real patterns," that had one not be aware it, would have escape one's notice as a mundane realization.
You had to understand how "geometrical seeing" is held in context of Dirac's wording, to know that this tendency to draw lines at the basis of consciousness, was also evident in Feynman's toy model construction. It is something that we do, do.
So what did I learn?
"Betrayal of Images" by Rene Magritte. 1929 painting on which is written "This is not a Pipe"
What sense would any of this "cognitive idealization" make, if one did not have some model in which to present, and know, that it was the underlay of all experience, and that the time of our day, might see us use it in topologically in different ways?
I used Sklar for this example.
But more then this what use is "Pascal Triangle" if we did not understand the emergence of "patterned numbers" from some initial beginning and cognitive realization, had we not recognized Pascal's model intepretation?
With no know emergent principals, or geometry arising from inside the blackhole, it was important that the basis of expression be realized as a pattern forming recognitive valuation? Is it right? I am not sure, but part of the developing model application had me wonder about how we could have encapsulated the cyclical nature of, what was collapsing into the singularity, was now actually, the motivational force for the developing new universe?
When it was discovered that black holes can decay by quantum processes, it was also discovered that black holes seem to have the thermodynamic properties of temperature and entropy. The temperature of the black hole is inversely proportional to its mass, so the black hole gets hotter and hotter as it decays.
So it was important to know the basis of D brane recognitive values, in how the blackhole is interpreted?