| Thread Closed |
Latest expert thinking on black hole information loss? |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Apr8-04, 01:26 PM | #1 |
|
|
Latest expert thinking on black hole information loss?
<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 tried to send this post to John Baez\'s "Open Questions in Physics"\nthread about two weeks ago, but apparently it got lost in cyberspace.\n\nMy question is: What is the current status of the black hole\ninformation loss controversy?\n\nThe physics FAQ on the subject says it was written by Warren Anderson\nin 1996. A whole lot of water has gone over the dam since then.\nPerhaps it needs to be updated.\n\nWhat -is- the current thinking of the major groups of players?\n\nFirst, what do the string theory people think?\nI know at least some string theorists think that the black hole\ninformation loss (bhil) question has been resolved in favor of no\ninformation loss (eg Mathur et al) (See recent press release saying\nthat Hawking and Thorne should pay off their "famous bet" with\nPreskill, which made it into USA Today and Economist, but not NY Times\nat least as far as I could tell.)\n\nDo string theorists in general agree with this? And also, do they\nagree in general with the Mathur et al approach?\n\nSecond, what about Loop Quantum Gravity People? Are they mostly of\none mind re bhil, or do they differ? My gut feel is that they are\nin, or lean toward the no loss camp, but I am not sure.\n\nDoes bhil show up anywhere in the recent 125 page Ashtekar-Lewandowski\nreview? I haven\'t read it all, but I found references to elimination\nof singularities and eliminanations of BKL chaos, but not a direct\nreference to bhil. (Does elimination of singularities imply\nelimination of bhil, or must you also eliminate horizons, or mitigate\nthem in some way?)\n\nFinally what about the type of people who are not into ST or LQG, but\nwork on things like Gravity Probe B, LIGO, LISA and all the similar\nexperiments?\nDo they even care about bhil, and if so, in which direction do they\nlean?\n\nSo how about it?\nShould Hawking and Thorne pay off Preskill, or does this debate still\nhave a long way to go?\n\nI am very curious to hear what the experts think.\n\nTIA. Jim Graber\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 tried to send this post to John Baez's "Open Questions in Physics"
thread about two weeks ago, but apparently it got lost in cyberspace. My question is: What is the current status of the black hole information loss controversy? The physics FAQ on the subject says it was written by Warren Anderson in 1996. A whole lot of water has gone over the dam since then. Perhaps it needs to be updated. What -is- the current thinking of the major groups of players? First, what do the string theory people think? I know at least some string theorists think that the black hole information loss (bhil) question has been resolved in favor of no information loss (eg Mathur et al) (See recent press release saying that Hawking and Thorne should pay off their "famous bet" with Preskill, which made it into USA Today and Economist, but not NY Times at least as far as I could tell.) Do string theorists in general agree with this? And also, do they agree in general with the Mathur et al approach? Second, what about Loop Quantum Gravity People? Are they mostly of one mind re bhil, or do they differ? My gut feel is that they are in, or lean toward the no loss camp, but I am not sure. Does bhil show up anywhere in the recent 125 page Ashtekar-Lewandowski review? I haven't read it all, but I found references to elimination of singularities and eliminanations of BKL chaos, but not a direct reference to bhil. (Does elimination of singularities imply elimination of bhil, or must you also eliminate horizons, or mitigate them in some way?) Finally what about the type of people who are not into ST or LQG, but work on things like Gravity Probe B, LIGO, LISA and all the similar experiments? Do they even care about bhil, and if so, in which direction do they lean? So how about it? Should Hawking and Thorne pay off Preskill, or does this debate still have a long way to go? I am very curious to hear what the experts think. TIA. Jim Graber |
| Apr8-04, 05:43 PM | #2 |
|
|
<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>In article <b174a6a6.0404071350.5a02aa16@posting.google.com>, Jim Graber wrote:\n>\n> Do string theorists in general agree with this? And also, do they\n> agree in general with the Mathur et al approach?\n\nMost string theorists believe that there is no information loss.\nThe Mathur et al approach is still up in the air, however, I\'d\nsay. I\'ve read a little of their work, and I\'m not sure I agree\nwith their interpretation of the results.\n\nAaron\n--\nAaron Bergman\n<http://zippy.ph.utexas.edu/~abergman/>\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>In article <b174a6a6.0404071350.5a02aa16@posting.google.com>, Jim Graber wrote:
> > Do string theorists in general agree with this? And also, do they > agree in general with the Mathur et al approach? Most string theorists believe that there is no information loss. The Mathur et al approach is still up in the air, however, I'd say. I've read a little of their work, and I'm not sure I agree with their interpretation of the results. Aaron -- Aaron Bergman <http://zippy.ph.utexas.edu/~abergman/> |
| Thread Closed |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: Latest expert thinking on black hole information loss?
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| Hawking's preprint: Information loss in Black holes | Beyond the Standard Model | 10 | ||
| black hole information loss | General Physics | 2 | ||
| information loss in black holes | General Physics | 31 | ||
| information loss in black holes | General Physics | 2 | ||
Physorg.com Science News Partner
