So what’s Nima’s comment on Horava’s modified gravity?

Surprisingly, Horava’s gravity wasn’t mentioned a single time during the workshop, not even by analog people. (And those people I talked to were not aware of it.) Nima didn’t mention it either.

My personal opinion is the same as Lubos’ one he presented above, Horava’s gravity is not subtle since it features superluminal propagation of signals.

By the way, Nima has admitted that the point of view “screw holography and BH entropy, gravity is effective theory, and locality should win in the end” is perfectly legitimate, so whether you accept holographic philosophy or not is a question of taste. My impression is that holography is a good taste, and analog gravity is a bad taste: theory itself tells you something (and this something is very deep), while you prefer to ignore it saying that the theory is approximate anyway.

The second thing is that it wasn’t really proven that the action of Horava theory is reduced to Einstein-Hilbert action in the IR.

Cheers,
Dmitry.

And despite this superluminality, it is not really “nonlocal”, and it has arbitrarily short spatial distances that can’t be measured because in proper gravity, the heavy gadgets needed to see them should collapse into a black hole which is again larger. So the theory violates pretty much every rule that Nima has listed, doesn’t it?

I just spoke to God about the possibility to forgive Nima’s sins because what he says about the “subtle” “nonlocality” finally makes sense.