- Levin, Mark R.
Liberty and Tyranny.
New York: Threshold Editions, 2009.
ISBN 978-1-4165-6285-6.
-
Even at this remove, I can recall the precise moment when
my growing unease that the world wasn't
turning into the place I'd hoped to live as an adult
became concrete and I first began to comprehend the
reasons for the trends which worried me. It was
October 27th, 1964 (or maybe a day or so later, if
the broadcast was tape delayed) when I heard Ronald
Reagan's speech
“A
Time for Choosing”, given in support of Barry Goldwater's
U.S. presidential campaign. Notwithstanding the electoral
disaster of the following week, many people consider Reagan's
speech (often now called just “The Speech”)
a pivotal moment both in the rebirth of conservatism in
the United States and Reagan's own political career. I know that
I was never the same afterward: I realised that the vague feelings
of things going the wrong way were backed up by the facts
Reagan articulated and, further and more important, that there were
alternatives to the course the country and society was presently
steering. That speech, little appreciated at the time, changed the course
of American history and changed my life.
Here is a book with the potential to do the same for
people today who, like me in 1964, are disturbed at the
way things are going, particularly young people who, indoctrinated
in government schools and the intellectual monoculture of higher
education, have never heard the plain and yet eternal wisdom
the author so eloquently and economically delivers here.
The fact that this book has recently shot up to the number one
rank in Amazon.com book sales indicates that not only is the
message powerful, but that an audience receptive to it exists.
The author admirably cedes no linguistic ground to the enemies
of freedom. At the very start he dismisses the terms
“liberal” (How is it liberal to advocate state
coercion as the answer to every problem?) and
“progressive” (How can a counter-revolution
against the inherent, unalienable rights of individual human
beings in favour of the state possibly be deemed progress?)
for “Statist”, which is used consistently
thereafter. He defines a “Conservative” not as
one who cherishes the past or desires to return to it, but
rather a person who wishes to conserve the individual
liberty proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence and
supposedly protected by the Constitution (the author and I
disagree about the wisdom of the latter document and the
motives of those who promoted it). A Conservative is not
one who, in the 1955
words
of William F. Buckley “stands athwart history, yelling Stop”,
but rather believes in incremental, prudential reform, informed by the
experience of those who went before, from antiquity up until
yesterday, with the humility to judge every policy not by
its intentions but rather by the consequences it produces, and always
ready to reverse any step which proves, on balance, detrimental.
The Conservative doesn't believe in utopia, nor in the
perfectibility or infinite mutability of human nature. Any
aggregate of flawed humans will be inevitably flawed;
that which is least flawed and allows individuals the most scope
to achieve the best within themselves is as much as can be
hoped for. The Conservative knows from history that every
attempt by Statists to create heaven on Earth by revolutionary
transformation and the hope of engendering a “new man”
has ended badly, often in tragedy.
For its length, this book is the best I've encountered at delivering
the essentials of the conservative (or, more properly termed, but
unusable due to corruption of the language, “classical liberal”)
perspective on the central issues of the time. For those who have read
Burke,
Adam Smith,
de Tocqueville,
the Federalist Papers,
Hayek,
Bastiat,
Friedman,
and other classics of individual and economic liberty
(the idea that these are anything but inseparable is
another Statist conceit), you will find little that is new
in the foundations, although all of these threads are pulled
together in a comprehensible and persuasive way. For people
who have never heard of any of the above, or have been
taught to dismiss them as outdated, obsolete, and inapplicable
to our age, this book may open the door to a new, more clear
way of thinking, and through its abundant source citations (many
available on the Web) invites further exploration by those
who, never having thought of themselves before as
“conservative”, find their heads nodding in agreement
with many of the plain-spoken arguments presented here.
As the book progresses, there is less focus on fundamentals
and more on issues of the day such as the regulatory state,
environmentalism, immigration, welfare dependency, and foreign
relations and military conflicts. This was, to me, less
satisfying than the discussion of foundational principles.
These issues are endlessly debated in a
multitude of venues, and those who call themselves
conservatives and agree on the basics nonetheless come down on
different sides of many of these issues. (And why not?
Conservatives draw on the lessons of the past, and there are
many ways of interpreting the historical record.) The book
concludes with “A Conservative Manifesto” which,
while I concur that almost every point mentioned would be a
step in the right direction for the United States, I cannot
envision how, in the present environment, almost any of the
particulars could be adopted. The change that is needed is
not the election of one set of politicians to replace
another—there is precious little difference between
them—but rather the slow rediscovery and infusion into
the culture of the invariant principles, founded in human nature
rather than the theories of academics, which are so lucidly
explained here. As the author notes, the statists have taken
more than eight decades on their long march through the
institutions to arrive at the present situation. Champions of
liberty must expect to be as patient and persistent if they
are to prevail. The question is whether they will enjoy the
same freedom of action their opponents did, or fall victim as
the soft tyranny of the providential state becomes absolute
tyranny, as has so often been the case.
- Dunn, Robin MacRae.
Vickers Viscount.
North Branch, MN: Specialty Press, 2003.
ISBN 978-1-58007-065-2.
-
Post World War II Britain had few technological and industrial
successes of which to boast: as government administered
industrial policy, sweeping nationalisations, and ascendant
unions gripped the economy, “brain drain” became
the phrase for the era. One bright spot in this dingy
landscape was the world's first turboprop powered airliner,
the
Vickers
Viscount. Less ambitious than its contemporary, the
turbojet powered
De Havilland Comet, it escaped the tragic fate
which befell early models of that design and caused it to
lose out to competitors which entered the market much later.
Despite its conventional appearance and being equipped with
propellers, the Viscount represented a genuine revolution in
air transport. Its turbine engines were vastly more reliable
than the finicky piston powerplants of contemporary
airliners, and provided its passengers a much quieter ride,
faster speed, and the ability to fly above much of the bumpy
weather. Its performance combined efficiency in the European
short hop market for which it was intended with a maximum
range (as much as 2,450 miles for some models with optional
fuel tanks) which allowed it to operate on many intercontinental
routes.
From the first flight of the prototype in July 1948 through
entry into regular scheduled airline service in April 1953,
the Viscount pioneered and defined turboprop powered
air transport. From the start, the plane was popular with
airlines and their passengers, with a total of 445 being
sold. Some airlines ended up buying other equipment simply
because demand for Viscounts meant they could not obtain delivery
positions as quickly as they required. The Viscount flew for
a long list of operators in the primary and secondary market,
and was adapted as a freighter, high-density holiday charter
plane, and VIP and corporate transport. Its last passenger
flight in the U.K. took place on April 18th, 1996, the 43rd
anniversary of its entry into service.
This lavishly illustrated book tells the story of the Viscount
from concept through retirement of the last exemplars.
A guide helps sort through the bewildering list of
model numbers assigned to variants of the basic design, and
comparative specifications of the principal models
are provided. Although every bit as significant a breakthrough
in propulsion as the turbojet, the turboprop powered Viscount
never had the glamour of the faster planes without propellers.
But they got their passengers to their destinations quickly,
safely, and made money for the airlines delivering them
there, which is all one can ask of an airliner, and made
the Viscount a milestone in British aeronautical engineering.
- Lane, Nick.
Power, Sex, Suicide.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
ISBN 978-0-19-920564-6.
-
When you start to look in detail at the evolution of life on
Earth, it appears to be one mystery after another. Why did
life appear so quickly after the Earth became hospitable to it?
Why did life spend billions of years exclusively in the form
of single-celled bacteria without a nucleus
(bacteria
and
archaea)?
Why are all complex cells
(eukaryotes)
apparently descended from a single ancestral cell?
Why did it take so long for complex multicellular
organisms to evolve? (I've taken a crack [perhaps crackpot] shot
at
that one myself.)
Why did evolution favour sexual reproduction, where two parents are
required to produce offspring, while clonal reproduction is twice as
efficient? Why just two sexes (among the vast majority of species)
and not more? What drove the apparent trend toward greater size and
complexity in multicellular organisms? Why are the life spans of
organisms so accurately predicted by a power law based upon their
metabolic rate? Why and how does metabolic rate fall with the size
of an organism? Why did evolution favour warm-bloodedness (endothermy)
when it increases an organism's requirement for food by more than
an order of magnitude? Why do organisms age, and why is the rate of
ageing and the appearance of degenerative diseases so closely
correlated with metabolic rate? Conversely, why do birds and
bats live so long: a pigeon has about the same mass and metabolic
rate as a rat, yet lives ten times as long?
I was intensely interested in molecular biology and evolution of
complexity in the early 1990s, but midway through that decade I
kind of tuned it out—there was this “Internet”
thing going on which captured my attention…. While much
remains to be discovered, and many of the currently favoured
hypotheses remain speculative, there has been enormous progress
toward resolving these conundra in recent years, and this book is
an excellent way to catch up on this research frontier.
Quite remarkably, a common thread pulling together most of these
questions is one of the most humble and ubiquitous components
of eukaryotic life: the
mitochondria.
Long recognised as the power generators of the cell (“Power”), they have been
subsequently discovered to play a key rôle in
the evolution of sexual reproduction (“Sex”), and in
programmed cell death
(apoptosis—“Suicide”).
Bacteria and archaea are constrained in size by the cube/square law:
they power themselves by respiratory mechanisms embedded in their
cellular membranes, which grow as the square of their diameter, but
consume energy within the bulk of the cell, which grows as the cube.
Consequently, evolution selects for small size, as a larger bacterium
can generate less energy for its internal needs. Further, bacteria compete
for scarce resources purely by replication rate: a bacterium which
divides even a small fraction more rapidly will quickly come to predominate
in the population versus its more slowly reproducing competitors. In cell division,
the most energetically costly and time consuming part is copying the
genome's DNA. As a result, evolution ruthlessly selects for the shortest
genome, which results in the arcane overlapping genes in bacterial DNA
which look like the work of those byte-shaving programmers you knew back when
computers had 8 Kb RAM. All of this conspires to keep bacteria small and
simple and indeed, they appear to be as small and simple today as they
were three billion years and change ago. But that isn't to say they
aren't successful—you may think of them as pond scum, but
if you read the bacterial blogs, they think of us as an ephemeral epiphenomenon.
“It's the age of bacteria, and it always has been.”
Most popular science books deliver one central idea you'll take away from
reading them. This one has a forehead slapper about every twenty pages.
It is not a particularly easy read: nothing in biology is unambiguous,
and you find yourself going down a road and nodding in agreement, only to
find out a few pages later that a subsequent discovery has falsified the
earlier conclusion. While this may be confusing, it gives a sense of how
science is done, and encourages the reader toward scepticism of all
“breakthroughs” reported in the legacy media.
One of the most significant results of recent research into
mitochondrial function is the connection between free radical
production in the respiratory pipeline and ageing. While there is a
power law relationship between metabolic rate and lifespan, there are
outliers (including humans, who live about twice as long as they
“should” based upon their size), and a major discrepancy
for birds which, while obeying the same power law, are offset toward
lifespans from three to ten times as long. Current research offers a
plausible explanation for this: avians require aerobic power
generation much greater than mammals, and consequently have more
mitochondria in their tissues and more respiratory complexes in their
mitochondria. This results in lower free radical production, which
retards the onset of ageing and the degenerative diseases associated
with it. Maybe before long there will be a pill which amplifies the
mitochondrial replication factor in humans and, even if it doesn't
extend our lifespan, retards the onset of the symptoms of ageing and
degenerative diseases until the very end of life (old birds are very
much like young adult birds, so there's an existence proof of this).
I predict that the ethical questions associated with the creation of
this pill will evaporate within about 24 hours of its availability on
the market. Oh, it may have side-effects, such as increasing the
human lifespan to, say, 160 years. Okay, science fiction authors,
over to you!
If you are even remotely interested in these questions, this is a book
you'll want to read.
- Moffat, John W.
Reinventing Gravity.
New York: Collins, 2008.
ISBN 978-0-06-117088-1.
-
In the latter half of the nineteenth century, astronomers were
confronted by a puzzling conflict between their increasingly
precise observations and the predictions of Newton's time-tested
theory of gravity. The perihelion of the elliptical orbit of
the planet Mercury was found to precess by the tiny amount of
43 arc seconds per century more than could be accounted for
by the gravitational influence of the Sun and the other planets.
While small, the effect was unambiguously measured, and indicated
that something was missing in the analysis.
Urbain
Le Verrier, coming off his successful prediction of
the subsequently discovered planet Neptune by analysis of
the orbit of Uranus, calculated that Mercury's anomalous precession
could be explained by the presence of a yet unobserved planet
he dubbed
Vulcan.
Astronomers set out to observe the elusive inner planet in
transit
across the Sun or during solar eclipses, and despite
several sightings by respectable observers, no confirmed
observations were made. Other astronomers suggested a belt
of asteroids too small to observe within the orbit of Mercury
could explain its orbital precession. For more than fifty years,
dark matter—gravitating body or bodies so far unobserved—was
invoked to explain a discrepancy between the regnant theory of
gravitation and the observations of astronomers. Then, in 1915,
Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity which
predicted that
orbits in strongly curved spacetime
would precess precisely the way Mercury's orbit was observed to,
and that no dark matter was needed to reconcile the theory of
gravitation with observations. So much for planet Vulcan,
notwithstanding the subsequent one with all the pointy-eared logicians.
In the second half of the twentieth century, a disparate collection
of observations on the galactic scale and beyond: the
speed of rotation of stars in the discs of spiral galaxies, the
velocities of galaxies in galactic clusters, gravitational lensing
of distant objects by foreground galaxy clusters, the apparent
acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and the power spectrum
of the anisotropies in the cosmic background radiation, have yielded
results grossly at variance with the predictions of General Relativity.
The only way to make the results fit the theory is to assume that
everything we observe in the cosmos makes up less than 5% of
its total mass, and that the balance is “dark matter”
and “dark energy”, neither of which has yet been
observed or detected apart from their imputed gravitational effects.
Sound familiar?
In this book,
John Moffat,
a distinguished physicist who has spent most of his
long career exploring extensions to Einstein's theory of
General Relativity, dares to suggest that history may be about
to repeat itself, and that the discrepancy between what our
theories predict and what we observe may not be due to something
we haven't seen, but rather limitations in the scope of validity
of our theories. Just as Newton's theory of gravity, exquisitely
precise on the terrestrial scale and in the outer solar system,
failed when applied to the strong gravitational field close to
the Sun in which Mercury orbits, perhaps Einstein's theory
also requires corrections over the very large distances
involved in the galactic and cosmological scales. The author recounts his
quest for such a theory, and eventual development of Modified
Gravity (MOG), a scalar/tensor/vector field theory which reduces
to Einstein's General Relativity when the scalar and vector fields
are set to zero.
This theory is claimed to explain all of these large scale
discrepancies without invoking dark matter, and to do so,
after calibration of the static fields from observational
data, with no free parameters (“fudge factors”).
Unlike some other speculative theories, MOG makes a number of
predictions which it should be possible to test in the next
decade. MOG predicts a very different universe in the
strong field regime than General Relativity: there are no
black holes, no singularities, and the Big Bang is replaced
by a universe which starts out with zero matter density and
zero entropy at the start and decays because, as we all
know, nothing is unstable.
The book is fascinating, but in a way unsatisfying. The mathematical
essence of the theory is never explained: you'll have to read the
author's professional publications to find it. There are no
equations, not even in the end notes, which nonetheless contain
prose such as (p. 235):
Wilson loops can describe a gauge theory such as Maxwell's
theory of electromagnetism or the gauge theory of the
standard model of particle physics. These loops are gauge-invariant
observables obtained from the holonomy of the gauge connection
around a given loop. The holonomy of a connection in differential
geometry on a smooth manifold is defined as the measure to which
parallel transport around closed loops fails to preserve the
geometrical data being transported. Holonomy has nontrivial
local and global features for curved connections.
I know that they say you lose half the audience for every equation you
include in a popular science book, but this is pretty forbidding stuff for
anybody who wanders into the notes. For a theory like
this, the fit to the best available observational data is
everything, and this is discussed almost everywhere
only in qualitative terms. Let's see the numbers! Although
there is a chapter on string theory and quantum gravity, these
topics are dropped in the latter half of the book: MOG is a
purely classical theory, and there is no discussion of how it
might lead toward the quantisation of gravitation or be an
emergent effective field theory of a lower level quantum substrate.
There aren't many people with the intellect, dogged persistence, and
self-confidence to set out on the road to deepen our understanding
of the universe at levels far removed from those of our own
experience. Einstein struggled for ten years getting from
Special to General Relativity, and Moffat has worked for three
times as long arriving at MOG and working out its implications.
If it proves correct, it will be seen as one of the greatest
intellectual achievements by a single person (with a small group
of collaborators) in recent history. Should that be the
case (and several critical tests which may knock the theory out
of the box will come in the near future), this book will prove
a unique look into how the theory was so patiently constructed.
It's amusing to reflect, if it turns out that dark matter and dark
energy end up being epicycles invoked to avoid questioning a
theory never tested in the domains in which it was being applied,
how historians of science will look back at our age and wryly
ask, “What were they thinking?”.
I have a photo credit on p. 119 for a
vegetable.
- Flynn, Vince.
Transfer of Power.
New York: Pocket Books, 1999.
ISBN 978-0-671-02320-1.
-
No
one would have believed in the last years of the twentieth century
that Islamic terrorists could make a successful strike on a
high-profile symbol of U.S. power. Viewed from a decade later, this
novel, the first featuring counter-terrorism operative Mitch Rapp (who
sometimes makes Jack Bauer seem like a bureaucrat), is
astonishingly prescient. It is an almost perfect thriller—one
of the most difficult to put down books I've read in quite some time.
Apart from the action, which is abundant, the author has a
pitch-perfect sense of the venality and fecklessness of politicians
and skewers them with a gusto reminiscent of the early novels of Allen
Drury.
I was completely unaware of this author and his hugely popular
books (six of which, to date, have made the New York Times
bestseller list) until I heard an extended interview
(transcript;
audio parts
1,
2,
3)
with the author, after which I immediately ordered this book. It did
not disappoint, and I shall be reading more in the series.
I don't read thrillers in a hyper-critical mode unless they transgress
to such an extent that I begin to exclaim “oh, come on”.
Still, this novel is carefully researched, and the only goof I noticed
is in the Epilogue on p. 545 where “A KH-12 Keyhole satellite
was moved into geosynchronous orbit over the city of Sao Paulo
and began recording phone conversations”.
The
KH-12 (a somewhat
ambiguous designation for an upgrade of the
KH-11
reconnaissance satellite) operates in low Earth orbit, not
geosynchronous orbit, and is an imaging satellite, not a
signals intelligence satellite equipped to intercept communications.
The mass market edition I read includes a teaser
for Protect and Defend, the eighth novel in the
series. This excerpt contains major spoilers for
the earlier books, and if you're one of those people (like
me) who likes to follow the books in a series in order,
give it a miss.
- Orlov, Dmitry.
Reinventing Collapse.
Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers, 2008.
ISBN 978-0-86571-606-3.
-
The author was born in Leningrad and emigrated to the United
States with his family in the mid-1970s at the age of 12.
He experienced the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
subsequent events in Russia on a series of extended visits
between the late 1980s and mid 1990s. In this book
he describes firsthand what happens when a continental
scale superpower experiences economic and societal collapse,
what it means to those living through it, and how those who
survived managed to do so, in some cases prospering amid
the rubble.
He then goes on to pose the question of whether the remaining
superpower, the United States, is poised to experience a
collapse of the same magnitude. This he answers in the
affirmative, with only the timing uncertain (these events
tend to happen abruptly and with little warning—in
1985 virtually every Western analyst assumed the Soviet Union was a
permanent fixture on the world stage; six years later it was gone). He
presents a U.S. collapse scenario in the form of the following theorem on
p. 3, based upon the axioms of “Peak Oil” and the
unsustainability of the debt the U.S. is assuming to finance its
oil imports (as well as much of the rest of its consumer economy
and public sector).
Oil powers just about everything in the US economy, from
food production and distribution to shipping, construction and
plastics manufacturing. When less oil becomes available, less is
produced, but the amount of money in circulation remains the same,
causing the prices for the now scarcer products to be bid up, causing
inflation. The US relies on foreign investors to finance its purchases
of oil, and foreign investors, seeing high inflation and economic
turmoil, flee in droves. Result: less money with which to buy oil and,
consequently, less oil with which to produce things. Lather, rinse,
repeat; stop when you run out of oil. Now look around: Where did
that economy disappear to?
Now if you believe in Peak Oil (as the author most certainly
does, along with most of the rest of the catechism of the
environmental left), this is pretty persuasive. But even if
you don't, you can make the case for a purely
economic collapse, especially with the unprecedented deficits
and money creation as the present process of
deleveraging
accelerates into debt liquidation (either through inflation or
outright default and bankruptcy). The ultimate trigger doesn't make a
great deal of difference to the central argument: the U.S. runs on oil
(and has no near-term politically and economically viable
substitute) and depends upon borrowed money both to purchase oil and
to service its ever-growing debt. At the moment creditors begin to
doubt they're every going to be repaid (as happened with the Soviet
Union in its final days), it's game over for the economy,
even if the supply of oil remains constant.
Drawing upon the Soviet example, the author examines what an economic
collapse on a comparable scale would mean for the U.S. Ironically, he
concludes that many of the weaknesses which were perceived as
hastening the fall of the Soviet system—lack of a viable cash
economy, hoarding and self-sufficiency at the enterprise level,
failure to produce consumer goods, lack of consumer credit, no private
ownership of housing, and a huge and inefficient state agricultural
sector which led many Soviet citizens to maintain their own small
garden plots— resulted, along with the fact that the collapse
was from a much lower level of prosperity, in mitigating the
effects of collapse upon individuals. In the United States, which
has outsourced much of its manufacturing capability, depends heavily
upon immigrants in the technology sector, and has optimised its
business models around high-velocity cash transactions and just in
time delivery, the consequences post-collapse may be more dire than
in the “primitive” Soviet system. If you're going to
end up primitive, you may be better starting out primitive.
The author, although a U.S. resident for all of his adult life, did
not seem to leave his dark Russian cynicism and pessimism back in the
USSR. Indeed, on numerous occasions he mocks the U.S. and finds it
falls short of the Soviet standard in areas such as education, health
care, public transportation, energy production and distribution,
approach to religion, strength of the family, and durability and
repairability of capital and the few consumer goods produced.
These are indicative of what he terms a “collapse gap”,
which will leave the post-collapse U.S. in much worse shape than
ex-Soviet Russia: in fact he believes it will never recover and
after a die-off and civil strife, may fracture into a number
of political entities, all reduced to a largely 19th century
agrarian lifestyle. All of this seems a bit much, and is compounded
by offhand remarks about the modern lifestyle which seem to indicate
that his idea of a “sustainable” world would be one
largely depopulated of humans in which the remainder lived in
communities much like traditional African villages. That's
what it may come to, but I find it difficult to see this as
desirable. Sign me up for
L. Neil Smith's
“freedom, immortality, and the stars” instead.
The final chapter proffers a list of career opportunities
which proved rewarding in post-collapse Russia and may
be equally attractive elsewhere. Former lawyers, marketing
executives, financial derivatives traders, food chemists,
bank regulators, university administrators,
and all the other towering overhead of drones and dross
whose services will no longer be needed in post-collapse
America may have a bright future in the fields of
asset stripping, private security (or its mirror image,
violent racketeering), herbalism and medical quackery,
drugs and alcohol, and even employment in what remains of
the public sector. Hit those books!
There are some valuable insights here into the Soviet collapse as seen
from the perspective of citizens living through it and trying to make
the best of the situation, and there are some observations about the
U.S. which will make you think and question assumptions about the
stability and prospects for survival of the economy and society on its
present course. But there are so many extreme statements you come
away from the book feeling like you've endured an “end is
nigh” rant by a wild-eyed eccentric which dilutes the valuable
observations the author makes.
- Susskind, Leonard.
The Black Hole War.
New York: Little, Brown, 2008.
ISBN 978-0-316-01640-7.
-
I hesitated buying this book for some months after its
publication because of a sense there was something
“off” in the author's last book,
The Cosmic Landscape (March 2006).
I should learn to trust my instincts more; this book treats
a fascinating and important topic on the wild frontier
between general relativity and quantum mechanics in a
disappointing, deceptive, and occasionally infuriating
manner.
The author is an eminent physicist who has made major
contributions to string theory, the anthropic string
landscape, and the problem of black hole entropy and the
fate of information which is swallowed by a black hole.
The latter puzzle is the topic of the present book,
which is presented as a “war” between
Stephen Hawking and his followers, mostly general relativity
researchers, and Susskind and his initially small band of
quantum field and string theorists who believed that
information must be preserved in black hole
accretion and evaporation lest the foundations of
physics (unitarity and the invertibility of the S-matrix)
be destroyed.
Here is a simple way to understand one aspect of this
apparent paradox. Entropy is a measure of the hidden
information in a system. The entropy of gas at equilibrium
is very high because there are a huge number of microscopic
configurations (position and velocity) of the molecules
of the gas which result in the same macroscopic observables:
temperature, pressure, and volume. A perfect crystal at absolute
zero, on the other hand, has (neglecting zero-point energy), an
entropy of zero because there is precisely one arrangement of
atoms which exactly reproduces it. A classical black hole, as
described by general relativity, is characterised by just three
parameters: mass, angular momentum, and electrical charge.
(The very same basic parameters as elementary particles—hmmmm….)
All of the details of the mass and energy which went into the
black hole: lepton and baryon number, particle types, excitations,
and higher level structure are lost as soon as they cross the
event horizon and cause it to expand. According to Einstein's
theory, two black holes with the same mass, spin, and charge
are absolutely indistinguishable even if the first was made
from the collapse of a massive star and the second by crushing
1975 Ford Pintos in a cosmic trash compactor. Since there is a
unique configuration for a given black hole, there is no hidden
information and its entropy should therefore be zero.
But consider this: suppose you heave a ball of hot gas
or plasma—a star, say—into the black hole.
Before it is swallowed, it has a very high entropy, but
as soon as it is accreted, you have only empty space and
the black hole with entropy zero. You've just lowered the
entropy of the universe, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
says that cannot ever happen. Some may argue that the
Second Law is “transcended” in a circumstance
like this, but it is a pill which few physicists are willing
to swallow, especially since in this case it occurs in a
completely classical context on a large scale where statistical
mechanics obtains. It was this puzzle which led
Jacob Bekenstein
to propose that black holes did, in fact, have an entropy which
was proportional to the area of the event horizon in units of
Planck length squared. Black holes not only have entropy, they
have a huge amount of it, and account for the overwhelming
majority of entropy in the universe. Stephen Hawking subsequently
reasoned that if a black hole has entropy, it must have temperature
and radiate, and eventually worked out the mechanism of
Hawking
radiation and the evaporation of black holes.
But if a black hole can evaporate, what happens to the information
(more precisely, the quantum state) of the material which collapsed
into the black hole in the first place? Hawking argued that it
was lost: the evaporation of the black hole was a purely
thermal process which released none of the information lost down
the black hole. But one of the foundations of quantum mechanics is
that information is never lost; it may be scrambled in
complex scattering processes to such an extent that you can't
reconstruct the initial state, but in principle if you had complete
knowledge of the state vector you could evolve the system backward and
arrive at the initial configuration. If a black hole permanently
destroys information, this wrecks the predictability of quantum mechanics
and with it all of microscopic physics.
This book chronicles the author's quest to find out what happens to
information that falls into a black hole and discover the mechanism
by which information swallowed by the black hole is eventually restored
to the universe when the black hole evaporates. The reader encounters
string theory, the holographic principle, D-branes, anti de Sitter space,
and other arcana, and is eventually led to the explanation that a
black hole is really just an enormous ball of string, which encodes
in its structure and excitations all of the information of the
individual fundamental strings swallowed by the hole. As the black
hole evaporates, little bits of this string slip outside the event
horizon and zip away as fundamental particles, carrying away the
information swallowed by the hole.
The story is told largely through analogies and is easy to follow
if you accept the author's premises. I found the tone of the
book quite difficult to take, however. The word which kept popping
into my head as I made my way through was “smug”. The
author opines on everything and anything, and comes across
as scornful of anybody who disagrees with his opinions. He
is bemused and astonished when he discovers that somebody who is
a Republican, an evangelical Christian, or some other belief
at variance with the dogma of the academic milieu he inhabits
can, nonetheless, actually be a competent scientist. He goes on for
two pages (pp. 280–281) making fun of Mormonism and then
likens Stephen Hawking to a cult leader. The physics is difficult
enough to explain; who cares about what Susskind thinks about
everything else? Sometimes he goes right over the top, resulting
in unseemly prose like the following.
Although the Black Hole War should have come to an end in early
1998, Stephen Hawking was like one of those unfortunate soldiers
who wander in the jungle for years, not knowing that the
hostilities have ended. By this time, he had become a tragic
figure. Fifty-six years old, no longer at the height of his
intellectual powers, and almost unable to communicate, Stephen
didn't get the point. I am certain that it was not because of his
intellectual limitations. From the interactions I had with him
well after 1998, it was obvious that his mind was still extremely
sharp. But his physical abilities had so badly deteriorated that
he was almost completely locked within his own head. With no way
to write an equation and tremendous obstacles to collaborating
with others, he must have found it impossible to do the things
physicists ordinarily do to understand new, unfamiliar work. So
Stephen went on fighting for some time. (p. 419)
Or, Prof. Susskind, perhaps it's that the intellect of Prof.
Hawking makes him sceptical of arguments based a “theory”
which is, as you state yourself on p. 384, “like a very
complicated Tinkertoy set, with lots of different parts that can
fit together in consistent patterns”; for which not a single
fundamental equation has yet been written down; in which no
model that remotely describes the world in which we live has been
found; whose mathematical consistency and finiteness in other
than toy models remains conjectural; whose results regarding black
holes are based upon another conjecture
(AdS/CFT)
which, even if proven, operates in a spacetime utterly unlike the
one we inhabit; which seems to predict a vast “landscape”
of possible solutions (vacua) which make it not a
theory of everything but rather a “theory of anything”;
which is formulated in a flat
Minkowski spacetime,
neglecting the background independence of general relativity;
and which, after three decades of intensive research by some of the
most brilliant thinkers in theoretical physics, has yet to make
a single experimentally-testable prediction, while demonstrating its
ability to wiggle out of almost any result (for example, failure of
the
Large
Hadron Collider
to find
supersymmetric
particles).
At the risk of attracting the scorn the author vents on pp. 186–187
toward non-specialist correspondents, let me say that the author's argument
for “black hole complementarity” makes absolutely no sense
whatsoever to this layman. In essence, he argues that matter infalling
across the event horizon of a black hole, if observed from outside, is
disrupted by the “extreme temperature” there, and is excited into
its fundamental strings which spread out all over the horizon, preserving the
information accreted in the stringy structure of the horizon (whence it can be
released as the black hole evaporates). But for a co-moving observer infalling
with the matter, nothing whatsoever happens at the horizon (apart from tidal
effects whose magnitude depends upon the mass of the black hole). Susskind argues
that since you have to choose your frame of reference and cannot simultaneously
observe the event from both outside the horizon and falling across it, there
is no conflict between these two descriptions, and hence they are
complementary in the sense Bohr described quantum observables.
But, unless I'm missing something fundamental, the whole thing about
the “extreme temperature” at the black hole event horizon is
simply nonsense. Yes, if you lower a thermometer from a space station at some
distance from a black hole down toward the event horizon, it will register a
diverging temperature as it approaches the horizon. But this is because it
is moving near the speed of light with respect to spacetime falling through the
horizon and is seeing the cosmic background radiation blueshifted by a factor
which reaches infinity at the horizon. Further, being suspended above the
black hole, the thermometer is in a state of constant acceleration (it might
as well have a rocket keeping it at a specified distance from the horizon as
a tether), and is thus in a
Rindler spacetime
and will measure black body radiation even in a vacuum due to the
Unruh effect.
But note that due to the equivalence principle, all of this will happen
precisely the same even with no black hole. The same thermometer,
subjected to the identical acceleration and velocity with respect to the
cosmic background radiation frame, will read precisely the same temperature
in empty space, with no black hole at all (and will even observe a horizon
due to its hyperbolic motion).
The “lowering the thermometer” is a completely different experiment
from observing an object infalling to the horizon. The fact that the suspended
thermometer measures a high temperature in no way implies that a free-falling
object approaching the horizon will experience such a temperature or be disrupted
by it. A co-moving observer with the object will observe nothing as it
crosses the horizon, while a distant observer will see the object appear to freeze
and wink out as it reaches the horizon and the time dilation and redshift
approaches infinity. Nowhere is there this legendary string blowtorch at the
horizon spreading out the information in the infalling object around a horizon
which, observed from either perspective, is just empty space.
The author concludes, in a final chapter titled “Humility”,
“The Black Hole War is over…”. Well, maybe, but for this reader,
the present book did not make the sale. The arguments made here are based upon
aspects of string theory which are, at the moment, purely conjectural and models
which operate in universes completely different from the one we inhabit. What
happens to information that falls into a black hole? Well, Stephen Hawking has
now conceded
that it is preserved and released in black hole evaporation (but this assumes
an anti de Sitter spacetime, which we do not inhabit), but this book
just leaves me shaking my head at the arm waving arguments and speculative
theorising presented as definitive results.