black hole information loss [Archive]

Zachary Uram

Aug4-04, 01:19 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>I was listening to the radio and heard that Stephen Hawking, in a\npaper presented at the 17th Conference on Gravity, has apparently\nreversed his position on the question of information loss in black\nholes. IIRC he believed information was irrevocably lost once it\npassed the event horizon but now he believes it survives later on in\nsome nebulous \'form\' as the black hole slowly disintegrates. I wasn\'t\nsure if he meant that ALL black holes will die in this way or if the\n\'information\' emitted is meangingful in any way. What does this imply\nfor the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy in the universe? How is\nthis \'information\' loss different from Hawking Radiation? Does anyone\nagree/disagree with Hawking\'s latest position? Is there any way to\ntest if he is correct?\n\nRegards,\nZach\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>I was listening to the radio and heard that Stephen Hawking, in a
paper presented at the 17th Conference on Gravity, has apparently
reversed his position on the question of information loss in black
holes. IIRC he believed information was irrevocably lost once it
passed the event horizon but now he believes it survives later on in
some nebulous 'form' as the black hole slowly disintegrates. I wasn't
sure if he meant that ALL black holes will die in this way or if the
'information' emitted is meangingful in any way. What does this imply
for the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy in the universe? How is
this 'information' loss different from Hawking Radiation? Does anyone
agree/disagree with Hawking's latest position? Is there any way to
test if he is correct?

Regards,
Zach

Doug Goncz

Aug13-04, 05:41 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n>From: netrek@gmail.com (Zachary Uram)\n\n>Does anyone\n>agree/disagree with Hawking\'s latest position?\n\nI\'m sure someone does.\n\n>What does this imply\n>for the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy in the universe?\n\nI read something in Scientific American about this within the last year.\n\nSky and Telescope reports "Hawking Admits Defeat"\n\nhttp://skyandtelescope.com/news/current/article_1308_1.asp\n\nBusy, busy server...\n\n\nYours,\n\nDoug Goncz ( ftp://users.aol.com/DGoncz/incoming )\nStudent member SAE for one year.\nI love: Dona, Jeff, Kim, Mom, Neelix, Tasha, and Teri, alphabetically.\nI drive: A double-step Thunderbolt with 657% range.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>>From: netrek@gmail.com (Zachary Uram)

>Does anyone
>agree/disagree with Hawking's latest position?

I'm sure someone does.

>What does this imply
>for the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy in the universe?

I read something in Scientific American about this within the last year.

Sky and Telescope reports "Hawking Admits Defeat"

http://skyandtelescope.com/news/current/article_1308_1.asp

Busy, busy server...

Yours,

Doug Goncz ( ftp://users.aol.com/DGoncz/incoming )
Student member SAE for one year.
I love: Dona, Jeff, Kim, Mom, Neelix, Tasha, and Teri, alphabetically.
I drive: A double-step Thunderbolt with 657% range.

Nicolaas Vroom

Aug14-04, 06:58 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\n" Doug Goncz " <dgoncz@aol.com> schreef in bericht\nnews:20040812183034.05745.00002935@mb-m14.aol.com...\n>\n> I read something in Scientific American about this within the last year.\n>\n> Sky and Telescope reports "Hawking Admits Defeat"\n>\n> http://skyandtelescope.com/news/current/article_1308_1.asp\n\nAs part of this document I read:\n"In quantum mechanics, it should always be possible theoretically\nto trace back the initial conditions of a physical system to its origin."\nHow do you do that ?\nHow do you prove that this is correct ?\n(What is the value of a theory if you can not prove that theory\nby means of an experiment ?)\n\nI also read:\n"It is a basic principle of quantum mechanics that information\ncan\'t be destroyed."\nOne of the basic laws of physics is called: Conservation of Energy.\nThis law more or less states that the amount of all forms of Energy\nin a closed system is constant.\nThis law allows for any number of transformations between the\ndifferent forms of Energy.\nThis law does not allow, based on the current (Energy) state of your\nclosed system, to make any prediction about the previous (Energy)\nstates of this system. In fact an "infinite" amount of information\nis necessary to historise those previous (Energy) states.\nIn short if you do not record it, all that information is lost.\n\nHow do you explain that at a quantum mechanical level of that\nsame closed physical system that there is no information loss ?\nOr\nHow do you explain that at a quantum mechanical level of that\nsame closed physical system what the initial conditions are?\n(1 million years ago ?)\n\nNicolaas Vroom\nhttp://user.pandora.be/nicvroom/\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>" Doug Goncz " <dgoncz@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:20040812183034.05745.00002935@mb-m14.aol.com...
>
> I read something in Scientific American about this within the last year.
>
> Sky and Telescope reports "Hawking Admits Defeat"
>
> http://skyandtelescope.com/news/current/article_1308_1.asp

As part of this document I read:
"In quantum mechanics, it should always be possible theoretically
to trace back the initial conditions of a physical system to its origin."
How do you do that ?
How do you prove that this is correct ?
(What is the value of a theory if you can not prove that theory
by means of an experiment ?)

I also read:
"It is a basic principle of quantum mechanics that information
can't be destroyed."
One of the basic laws of physics is called: Conservation of Energy.
This law more or less states that the amount of all forms of Energy
in a closed system is constant.
This law allows for any number of transformations between the
different forms of Energy.
This law does not allow, based on the current (Energy) state of your
closed system, to make any prediction about the previous (Energy)
states of this system. In fact an "infinite" amount of information
is necessary to historise those previous (Energy) states.
In short if you do not record it, all that information is lost.

How do you explain that at a quantum mechanical level of that
same closed physical system that there is no information loss ?
Or
How do you explain that at a quantum mechanical level of that
same closed physical system what the initial conditions are?
(1 million years ago ?)

Nicolaas Vroom
http://user.pandora.be/nicvroom/