- #1
Simple man
- 34
- 0
Is the "Information Paradox", close to getting resolved?
Yes.PeterDonis said:Do you mean the black hole information paradox?
PeterDonis said:Whether or not the black hole information paradox is resolved, or close to getting resolved, seems to depend on which physicist you ask. Some, like Susskind, seem to believe it's already resolved. Others think there's still a lot to learn. (I tend to lean towards the latter.) I don't think there's general consensus that it has been resolved, or that it will be any time soon.
Dear Mr. Donis,Simple man said:Yes.
Simple man said:Thanks for your answer!
PeterDonis said:You're welcome!
Also, I see this is your first thread, so welcome to PF!
Dear Mr. DonisSimple man said:Dear Mr. Donis,
Thanks for your answer!
Simple man said:Do you know if he felt that information was retained, or irretrievably lost, and why he came to his opinion?
Thanks Mr. Do is!PeterDonis said:Susskind's claimed resolution is that the information contained in an object falling through the hole's horizon is retained by being stored in a boundary layer just outside the event horizon of the black hole, and then it gets encoded into the Hawking radiation that the hole emits. He gets around the obvious issue with this, that the quantum no cloning theorem forbids the copying of quantum information, by saying that since the "original" of the information, contained in the infalling object, can never be observed again from outside the hole once it falls in, no observer will ever actually see two copies of the same quantum information. Not everyone is convinced by this (I'm not myself), but that's basically how he sees it.
This 1997 article by Susskind describes the basics of Black Hole Complementarity, which is his name for his resolution of the information paradox:
http://star.physics.yale.edu/~harris/Physics_120/Homework/BlackHolesandTheInformationParadox.pdf
Even though it was written in 1997, as far as I know it still is a valid description of the basics of Susskind's position. Much of what he's been doing since then has been trying to convince other physicists.
Remember. I'm just a simple man, with curiosity and lots of questions! Lol!Simple man said:Thanks Mr. Do is!
I can see I've got much more to learn about black holes! I'm familiar with Supertranslations and soft, or quantum hairs, and how how supertranslations store the entropy of objects as they pierce the event horizon in two dimensional holographs, or surface fluctuations, But I'm not sure how the "hairs" come into play as Hawking radiation plucks blueprints of info off the horizon as it radiates back into space. Is Hawking radiation like electron/positron pairs, or plain ole photons?
Simple man said:Is Hawking radiation like electron/positron pairs, or plain ole photons?
Well, if it's preserved then it certainly is not lost, but I believe he does so something that amounts to it being lost inside the black hole but preserved on the event horizon and later regurgitated as Hawking Radiation.Simple man said:Summary: Susskind's answer to the Information Paradox.
With Black Hole Complimentality, is Susskind essentially saying that information is both preserved and lost, simultaneously, after falling into a black Hole?
"Thanks, again, phinds!"phinds said:Well, if it's preserved then it certainly is not lost, but I believe he does so something that amounts to it being lost inside the black hole but preserved on the event horizon and later regurgitated as Hawking Radiation.
To me that's like saying that if you write something down and then forget it, it's preserved on the paper, which to me means it is preserved. It can't really be both.
Preserved means preservedSimple man said:... ultimately, does his resolution rule in favor of information prevervation, of loss of it? Or neither?"
phinds said:Preserved means preserved
Hawking conceded the point to Suskind after they argued about it for 20 years. Suskind wrote a book about the whole thing.Simple man said:Although information is spewed out from the black hole, via Hawking Radiation, didn't Hawking feel that the information would be chaotic, scrambled, and thus ultimately useless? So he believed info was lost, whereas Susskind says it's preserved?
How about "supertranslation hairs", or "soft hairs"? How do they come into play with information redisperement?phinds said:Hawking conceded the point to Suskind after they argued about it for 20 years. Suskind wrote a book about the whole thing.
What no one knows is HOW it is preserved and fed back into the universe. Hawking equations for Hawking Radiation do not contain a mechanism, so HOW is still a mystery.
No idea.Simple man said:How about "supertranslation hairs", or "soft hairs"? How do they come into play with information redisperement?
"Thanks for answering my questions, phinds!"phinds said:No idea.
Simple man said:With Black Hole Complimentality, is Susskind essentially saying that information is both preserved and lost, simultaneously, after falling into a black Hole?
Simple man said:Although information is spewed out from the black hole, via Hawking Radiation, didn't Hawking feel that the information would be chaotic, scrambled, and thus ultimately useless?
Simple man said:How about "supertranslation hairs", or "soft hairs"?
Hi, Mr Donis!PeterDonis said:No, he's saying the information gets preserved because it stays outside the black hole, and "information" inside the black hole doesn't count because it can never come back out.
Saying that the information cannot be retrieved in practice is not the same as saying it is lost. It's perfectly possible to have information that is preserved in the sense of a deterministic, reversible time evolution, while still having it inaccessible to humans for all practical purposes. So Hawking's contention that the information in Hawking radiation is scrambled so humans can't read it is not, in itself, inconsistent with Susskind's contention that all of the information gets preserved.
Does my interpretation sound accurate?Simple man said:Hi, Mr Donis!
This is my understanding as to what Supertranslations are. I don't know how accurate my interpretation is, but I'll give it a go!
When matter falls into a black hole, it pierces a layer one Planck unit thick, just above the event horizon. And, of course, all information and entropy is then stripped away from the matter. After that, the information is stored in surface fluctuations, called Supertranslations. As a result, all particles captured by the black hole interact with the event horizon, and produce "supertranslation hairs", or "quantum hairs". These "hairs" then somehow aid in the redispersement of quantum information, via Hawking Radiation, back into space. And they seem to enable Hawking Radiation to pluck blue prints of encoded information off of the event horizon. I believe these supertranslations are likened to 2-D holographic images. On a TV program, I heard Hawking call them supertranslations.
Simple man said:This is my understanding as to what Supertranslations are.
Simple man said:I don't know how accurate my interpretation is
Sorry, I do not.PeterDonis said:I asked you for a reference (textbook or peer-reviewed paper). Do you have one?
Neither do I. That's why you need to give a reference.
Simple man said:Sorry, I do not.
The "Information Paradox" refers to a puzzle in theoretical physics that arises from the principles of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It questions what happens to the information of an object that falls into a black hole, as according to these principles, it cannot be destroyed.
The resolution of the "Information Paradox" is crucial for our understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe. It has implications for our understanding of black holes, gravity, and the nature of space and time. It also has potential applications in fields such as quantum computing and information theory.
Yes, there have been several proposed solutions to the "Information Paradox" over the years, but none have been universally accepted. Some theories suggest that the information is stored on the surface of the black hole, while others propose that it is released back into the universe through Hawking radiation.
One of the main challenges in resolving the "Information Paradox" is the conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity. These two theories have different principles and laws, making it difficult to find a unified solution that satisfies both. Additionally, the lack of direct observational evidence also poses a challenge in testing and confirming proposed solutions.
Yes, the "Information Paradox" remains an active area of research for theoretical physicists. New theories and approaches are constantly being proposed and tested, and advancements in technology and observational techniques may provide new insights and evidence. It is a complex and challenging puzzle, but scientists are dedicated to finding a resolution to this fundamental question about the nature of our universe.