A follow-up to 'Does Nature abhor a logarithm?' (and apparently she doesn't)

Details A follow-up to 'Does Nature abhor a logarithm?' (and apparently she doesn't) A follow-up to 'Does Nature abhor a logarithm?' (and apparently she doesn't)

2004-11-15

arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411065v1

Class.Quant.Grav. 22 (2005) 5195

Astronomy and Astrophysics

Astrophysics

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology

4 pages

Scientific paper

10.1088/0264-9381/22/23/017

This letter contains a brief discussion on the leading-order canonical
correction to the Bekenstein-Hawking (black hole) entropy. In particular, we
address some recent criticism directed at an earlier commentary.

Affiliated with

Also associated with

No associations

Rating

A follow-up to 'Does Nature abhor a logarithm?' (and apparently she doesn't) does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.

If you have personal experience with A follow-up to 'Does Nature abhor a logarithm?' (and apparently she doesn't), we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and A follow-up to 'Does Nature abhor a logarithm?' (and apparently she doesn't) will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-212227