Latest on black hole infromation paradox?

[nrqed]

WHat is the present status about the black hole information paradox?
Is there some consensus?
Could someone recommend good recent papers discussing the current views?

Thanks!


Patrick

 

[Demystifier]

There is no consensus.
For reviews of various approaches, see e.g. Ref. [4] in my own proposal for the resolution of the paradox:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0905.0538

A very brief overview of the main approaches and their problems is presented also here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

 

[nrqed]

There is no consensus.
For reviews of various approaches, see e.g. Ref. [4] in my own proposal for the resolution of the paradox:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0905.0538

A very brief overview of the main approaches and their problems is presented also here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

Thank you Demystifier for the heads up. And I will look your proposal with keen interest.

Regards,

Patrick

 

[Naty1]

Leonard Susskind also has some interesting views...in THE BLACK HOLE WAR he discusses his views in contrast to those of Stephen Hawking...and lots more.

One simple perspective: there is no paradox. If you are outside a black hole you see one thing, if inside, you see another; you can't be both places...so it's analogous to different observers in relativity observing, say, different kinetic energies of an object, or the relativity of simultaneity...or the Unruh effect where an accelerating observer measures a different background temperature than an inertial observer...different observers see different things.

I haven't looked at Demystifier's discussion yet, but in general such "paradoxes" signal to me an underlying lack of some fundamental understanding.

Ok... now I skimmed it and although I can't comment on the math (it's abve my paygrade) I do like the idea that we need a fuller understanding of the relationship between space and time. Other similar hints exist in string theory duality and the holographic principle...our mathematical formulations don't seem quite general enough in scope to properly explain nature...

 

[Dmitry67]

One simple perspective: there is no paradox. If you are outside a black hole you see one thing, if inside, you see another; you can't be both places...so it's analogous to different observers in relativity observing, say, different kinetic energies of an object, or the relativity of simultaneity...or the Unruh effect where an accelerating observer measures a different background temperature than an inertial observer...different observers see different things.

Whats about Birds(Gods) View?
Or, like in Cosmology, where in Birds view (all Unvierse at the "same time") energy is not conserved (while it is conserved for any observer) - is it the same? Information can't be lsot for any observer - but this is not true in the Birds view?

Finally, what happens if external observer waits long enough for BH to evaporate?

 

[Geigerclick]

Whats about Birds(Gods) View?
Or, like in Cosmology, where in Birds view (all Unvierse at the "same time") energy is not conserved (while it is conserved for any observer) - is it the same? Information can't be lsot for any observer - but this is not true in the Birds view?

Finally, what happens if external observer waits long enough for BH to evaporate?

If Hawking was correct, then HR destroys information, and the "bird" can know what fell into the BH, but not to correlate this with any particular bit of HR. That said, does such a view require that the system be Unitary?

 

[BenTheMan]

Check out http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?eprint=arXiv:1005.3555

Samir Mathur has invented what he calls ``fuzz balls'', which are naturally realized in string theory, and which solve the information paradox. At it's heart, the info paradox arrises because there are no degrees of freedom at the black hole's event horizon. In other words, an in-falling observer sees smooth space-time, with nothing new. If you accept this picture, then Mathur shows that you WILL get an information loss problem (he has elevated it to a theorem). So the only solution is to abandon quantum mechanics (which seems non-sensical), or to allow quantum fluctuations at the horizon. The former approach doesn't seem to have any tangible results, whereas the latter approach (fuzz balls) seems to get you pretty far.

 

[Demystifier]

Whats about Birds(Gods) View?
Or, like in Cosmology, where in Birds view (all Unvierse at the "same time") energy is not conserved (while it is conserved for any observer) - is it the same? Information can't be lsot for any observer - but this is not true in the Birds view?

Well, my proposal that I mentioned above is a kind of the bird proposal. (And no, it does not rest on BM. It is more MWI-like in spirit.) For a simplified explanation of that idea, see also
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0912.1938

 

[Demystifier]

Thank you Demystifier for the heads up. And I will look your proposal with keen interest.

Regards,

Patrick

Thanks! I would like to see your opinion.

 

[Naty1]

Here is the view of Leonard Susskind later in his book THE BLACK HOLE WAR, page 419.

Just two months after Maldacena's (ADs/CFT) paper (Ed) Witten's...paper "Anti De Sitter Space and Holography ...Witten explained that by injecting enough mass and energy into a can (of ADS) a black hole could be created...According the Maldacena there must be a second description ..that makes no reference to the inside of the can...The moment I saw Witten's paper, I knew the Black Hole War was over. Quantum Field Theory is a special case of quantum mechanics and information in quantum mechanics can never be lost. Whatever else Maldacena and Witten had done, they had proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that information would never be lost behind a black hole horizon. The string theorists could understand this immediately; the relativists would take longer.

he continues " Stephan didn't get the point"...me either.

But if anyone knows Witten's and Maldecena's view on the information paradox, and if they both agree with Susskind, that would pretty much clinch it for me.