Me:
>> Simple. Find out what lies beyond quantum mechanics: it's just a
>> theory, remember? (An incredibly solid one, though.)
Anders:
> Well, that is in some sense cheating (meta-cheating?) and doesn't
> guarantee a way to cheat Bekenstein.
The Bekenstein Bound is just a corollary of the quantum nature of
Nature.
Remember the "hidden variable" propositions? They are futile attempts
to
"describe" the quantum realm in terms of derived concepts like
subjective
reality. Even today, many decades after the discovery of quantum nature
of the universe there are few people who can conceptually grasp QM. It
seems to my humble consciousness that a similar thing is happenning to
string theory at the moment, but I'm just an interested observer and I
don't want to nurture hyperbole. If a revolution is indeed in progress,
I expect we'll end up with a more fundamental theory resulting in QM as
its observable approximation. Beware, in a stringy universe the concept
of spacetime itself emerges from the theory; in contrast, in QM it's the
stage on which the events happen. Perhaps the quantum layer will prove
to be the last useful one for practical storage of information or
computation, but there's no way for us at this point in history to
comprehend what realms might lie beyond (boars and pearls come to mind).
Regards,
--dv