Resolution of the black hole information paradox

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The black hole information paradox centers on whether information can be lost when matter falls into a black hole. Physicists Kip Thorne, John Preskill, and Stephen Hawking have debated this issue, with Hawking conceding a bet in 2004, suggesting that black hole horizons may leak information. However, as of 2008, his resolution has not gained consensus within the scientific community. The discussion highlights various approaches to resolving the paradox, with a preference for James Hartle's method, which emphasizes the statistical nature of black hole thermodynamics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum theory and its principles
  • Familiarity with general relativity and black hole physics
  • Knowledge of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics
  • Awareness of the black hole information paradox and its historical context
NEXT STEPS
  • Research James Hartle's approach to the black hole information paradox
  • Study the implications of black hole thermodynamics on quantum gravity
  • Examine the various proposed resolutions to the black hole information paradox
  • Explore the latest developments in quantum mechanics related to black holes
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, and students of theoretical physics interested in the intersection of quantum mechanics and general relativity, particularly those exploring the implications of black holes on information theory.

physicslover2
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
What is the resolution of the black hole information paradox?
According to quantum theory, information — whether it describes the velocity of a particle or the precise manner in which ink marks or pixels are arranged on a document — cannot disappear from the universe. But the physicists Kip Thorne, John Preskill and Stephen Hawking have a standing bet: what would happen if you dropped a copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica down a black hole? It does not matter whether there are other identical copies elsewhere in the cosmos. As defined in physics, information is not the same as meaning, but simply refers to the binary digits, or some other code, used to precisely describe an abject or pattern. So it seems that the information in those particular books would be swallowed up and gone forever. And that is supposed to be impossible. Dr. Hawking and Dr. Thorne believe the information would indeed disappear and that quantum mechanics will just have to deal with it. Dr. Preskill speculates that the information doesn’t really vanish: it may be displayed somehow on the surface of the black hole, as on a cosmic movie screen...
what do u people have to say about this ...?
i want to see ur views..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe Hawking conceded the bet.

from wikipedia:

In 2004, Hawking announced that he was conceding the bet, and that he now believed that black hole horizons should fluctuate and leak information, in doing so he provided Preskill a copy of an encyclopedia on baseball. Hawking later stated, "I gave John an encyclopedia of baseball, but maybe I should just have given him the ashes." Kip Thorne declined to concede the bet at that time. As of 2008[update], Hawking's argument that he has solved the paradox has not yet been accepted by the community, and a consensus has not yet been reached that Hawking has provided a strong enough argument that this is in fact what happens.


Essentially I see it this way. Classical general relativity does not concern it's selves with the microscopic degrees of freedom of the gravitational field in the same way as thermodynamics is ignorant of the microscopic degrees of freedom. We know now that the thermodynamics of a gas is a statistical effect due to coarse graining the large number of microscopic degrees of freedom. We should take the same attitude with black hole thermodynamics so when we have the correct theory of quantum gravity we will understand that information is not lost.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
14K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K