Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

CalTech BH answer contradicts Hawking's

  1. Jul 25, 2004 #1


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Two guys at CalTech and Jet Propulsion Lab just posted
    http://arxiv.org/gr-qc/0407090 [Broken]

    which appears to take care of the BH information paradox
    by analyzing how particles just about to disappear across the
    event horizon can signal their essential information as they fall in
    (a swan song, his entire life flashed before his eyes...)

    so while Hawking says the info falls into the hole but is not destroyed and eventually (in a way he did not specify) percolates out
    these people explicitly say that once particles fall into the hole they become indistinguishable and all informtion (except name rank serial number) is lost (sorry, except for mass, spin, and charge)
    so they contradict Hawking's resolution of the paradox
    and resolve it in their own comparatively concrete reasonable fashion

    Black holes conserve information in curved-space quantum field theory
    Christoph Adami, Greg L. Ver Steeg
    4 pages, 2 figures

    selfAdjoint has remarked on the strange coincidence that within the short space of a couple of months we see a handful of different resolutions of
    this paradox----all incidentally contradicting eachother

    Personally I'm partial to Gambini Porto Pullin which uses a realistic material clock to define time---eschewing idealized time

    but there is also Hawking

    and these people: Adami/Ver Steeg

    and who else did we hear about?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 25, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hi, Marcus!
    Did I miss something critical in the paper? I understood them to say that there must be emissions that are not purely thermal, which implies that some information can be transmitted.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  4. Jul 25, 2004 #3
  5. Jul 25, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I dont think you missed anything. There must have been some ambiguity in what I said. What I meant to say was this: according to these authors, once a particle has reached the event horizon it cannot telegraph anything about itself to the outside. But no information is lost because:

    Just before it gets to the brink it can send out information about itself (HELLLP! :eek: ) and this shows up as non-thermal emissions superimposed on the noise background of hawking radiation.

    I tried to edit my post to make that message clearer.
    The clearest depiction of their idea is in the two sidebyside Penrose diagrams in their Figure 1. You see the righthand Penrose diagram with the three wiggly lines showing radiation?

    The radiation is not coming from the event horizon or from inside the event horizon. The radiation is coming from just outside the event horizon, from the particles alpha, beta, and gamma, just before they plunge into the hole (and any special information about them is destroyed).

    I dont know how their paper will finally stack up, but they seem to me to have their own solution and put their own distinct twist on the story that we ought to register.

    the only solution of the paradox I know of (at least that came out in the past few months) that actually says the information is lost is the Gambini Porto Pullin "Realistic Clock" solution---that's one i really like a lot :smile:
  6. Jul 25, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Oh god yes, I was forgetting Samir Mathur and his fuzzballs!
    And PF member Gokul, an active contributor to the Brain Teasers and to Evo's general discussion, has an office three doors down the hall from Samir so he is practically family...
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: CalTech BH answer contradicts Hawking's
  1. A contradiction ? (Replies: 4)

  2. Orbiting a BH (Replies: 4)