- #1

- 159

- 8

- B
- Thread starter TheQuestionGuy14
- Start date

- #1

- 159

- 8

- #2

- 30,663

- 9,673

I think it depends on which physicists you talk to.Do physicists still debate whether they do or don't, or has the debate shifted to which theory explaining why information is not lost is correct?

- #3

- 50

- 0

Found this link for ya :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

- #4

atyy

Science Advisor

- 13,989

- 2,263

- #5

- 10,947

- 3,656

Most assume that information is not lost and try to understand how, but some still debate whether it is lost or not.Do physicists still debate whether they do or don't, or has the debate shifted to which theory explaining why information is not lost is correct?

- #6

.Scott

Homework Helper

- 2,613

- 950

Since the Hawking radiation can be emitted in more than one way (many more than one way), the Hawking radiation contains information.Stephen Hawking proposed that black holes will eventually evaporate due to Hawking radiation, thus all information eaten by the black hole is destroyed.

When information is said to be preserved in QM, it is referring to the amount of information - for example, as measured in bits. So if information is preserved in a black hole, then the number of bits it would have taken to describe the material that formed the black hole should be precisely the same number of bits it would take to describe the resulting Hawking radiation.

It would be very interesting if it could ever be determined that these values were not equal. For one thing, it would imply one or more of the following: that information can be fed into our universe from "somewhere else", or that there is an inherent QM direction to time (indicated by a monotonic reduction of information), or that there is something fundamental that keeps us from tallying up information in this way (perhaps because there are redundant copies of the information).

Last edited:

- #7

Boing3000

Gold Member

- 332

- 37

Is there any good reference which explains how many bits is needed to store the spin of a particle ? To me this kind of imply that there are hidden variables to be "encoded", and those variable are discreet (which seems unlikely for a spin angle))When information is said to be preserved in QM, it is referring to the amount of information - for example, as measured in bits.

- #8

- 159

- 8

Didn't hawking himself say there is no connection between in ingoing particles and the outgoing radiation?Since the Hawking radiation can be emitted in more than one way (many more than one way), the Hawking radiation contains information.

When information is said to be preserved in QM, it is referring to the amount of information - for example, as measured in bits. So if information is preserved in a black hole, then the number of bits it would have taken to describe the material that formed the black hole should be precisely the same number of bits it would take to describe the resulting Hawking radiation.

It would be very interesting if it could ever be determined that these values were not equal. For one thing, it would imply one or more of the following: that information can be fed into our universe from "somewhere else", or that there is an inherent QM direction to time (indicated by a monotonic reduction of information), or that there is something fundamental that keeps us from tallying up information in this way (perhaps because there are redundant copies of the information).

- #9

- 145

- 8

Is there any reason to assume an closed system interaction with a black hole violates any conserved quantity... angular momentum, mass-energy, charge, color charge etc.? If not what goes "missing" or how is any information literally "destroyed"?

- #10

.Scott

Homework Helper

- 2,613

- 950

Possibly - but not to my knowledge.Didn't hawking himself say there is no connection between in ingoing particles and the outgoing radiation?

There is certainly a connection. If it weren't for the incoming particles, there would be no black hole to begin with.

As @Demystifier said, most are looking for the connection. There are real theoretical problems with allowing information to be created and destroyed.

- #11

Strilanc

Science Advisor

- 596

- 213

The spin of a spin-half particle is capable of storing (or being represented by) exactly one qubit.Is there any good reference which explains how many bits is needed to store the spin of a particle ? To me this kind of imply that there are hidden variables to be "encoded", and those variable are discreet (which seems unlikely for a spin angle))

- #12

Boing3000

Gold Member

- 332

- 37

My issue is about the usage of the term "information" or "bits", not Qubit.The spin of a spin-half particle is capable of storing (or being represented by) exactly one qubit.

I am under the impression that one would need an infinite number of bit to store a Qubit

- #13

Strilanc

Science Advisor

- 596

- 213

When people talk about "conservation of information", especially with respect to black holes, they always meanMy issue is about the usage of the term "information" or "bits", not Qubit.

I am under the impression that one would need an infinite number of bit to store a Qubit

Also, it's not correct to say that a qubit requires infinite bits to store.

- #14

- 10,947

- 3,656

Not exactly. They mean the conservation of quantum entropy (von Neumann entropy), and this entropy is not measured in qubits.When people talk about "conservation of information", especially with respect to black holes, they always meanquantuminformation i.e. qubits.

- #15

Strilanc

Science Advisor

- 596

- 213

Hmmm, yes that's probably a better way to put it.Not exactly. They mean the conservation of quantum entropy (von Neumann entropy), and this entropy is not measured in qubits.

- #16

TeethWhitener

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 1,844

- 1,184

What ever happened with Hawking’s big announcement? It’s way beyond my ability to understand, but I (like to pretend that I) kind of got the gist of John Baez’s explanation:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week207.html

As far as I understand it, to examine the question of information loss, he computes the path integral over all (relevant?) metrics and argues that the contribution from nontrivial (I.e., black hole) topologies goes to zero in the far future limit. Coupled with the fact that non-black hole metrics clearly have no problem with unitarity, the total time evolution remains unitary. Caveat—I might be totally off in my explanation.

Baez describes several technical points that I don’t really understand. My question is: has anyone pursued Hawking’s initial idea further (alternately: has anyone shown that it’s likely infeasible)?

- #17

- 186

- 19

We now know the elements that make up stars also the ones which are big enough that after their fuel depletes turn into black holes, but what if all the stars in the past universe were big enough to become black holes and we came after they all had turned into black holes (for the sake of the argument pretend we can live without "sunlight") could we simply by using hawking radiation determine the exact chemical structure of the star that made the BH at the moment it turned into one by gathering all the emitted radiation or portions of it?

- #18

- 30,663

- 9,673

That is the question of black hole information loss--do black holes destroy information? We don't know the answer.could we simply by using hawking radiation determine the exact chemical structure of the star that made the BH at the moment it turned into one by gathering all the emitted radiation or portions of it?

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 879

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 980

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 918

- Last Post

- Replies
- 18

- Views
- 10K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 861

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 795

- Replies
- 20

- Views
- 8K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 4K