Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,064 questions , 2,215 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,743 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Has the black hole information loss paradox been settled?

+ 7 like - 0 dislike
4260 views

This question was triggered by a comment of Peter Shor's (he is a skeptic, it seems.) I thought that the holographic principle and AdS/CFT dealt with that, and was enough for Hawking to give John Preskill a baseball encyclopedia; but Kip Thorne is holding out, as are others. Why?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-14 19:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user Gordon
asked Jan 21, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Gordon (400 points) [ no revision ]

3 Answers

+ 8 like - 0 dislike

It is a matter of opinion, largely dependent on what you mean by settled:

  1. Is information lost or is evolution unitary? There are arguments based on AdS/CFT which make it almost certain that the evolution of a system from pre-collapse matter to after collapse radiation is unitary. This is because there is a dual description - an equivalent description of the system using different variables - in which unitary evolution is automatic. If this is true for black holes in AdS, it is hard to believe it is somehow different for black holes in flat space which are for all intent and purposes as close to their AdS cousins as we wish them to be. Based on that, most people I know are convinced what the right answer is.

  2. How is the information preserved, what is the mechanism for the unitary evolution? In particular, what's wrong with Hawking's original arguments to support information loss? I think it is fair to say that we don't know the answer, at least we don't know how to phrase the answer in the original, gravitational, language. I think there is a lot to learn by making this answer, even if we don't dispute it, as explicit as possible.

  3. As a subset of that, were the arguments given by Hawking, based on Maldacena's superficially similar arguments, convincing? Lots of people are skeptical, including myself. There are some technical and conceptual assumptions that don't seem quite right in that proposed solution.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-14 19:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user user566
answered Jan 21, 2011 by user566 (545 points) [ no revision ]
Most voted comments show all comments
@Ron: I guess I had the wrong impression about the dimensions. What do you mean by "it is derived from unitarity"? I am pretty sure it is still an open conjecture.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-14 19:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user MBN
@MBN: it is not easy to state it as a precise conjecture, because we don't have a good definition of string theory on AdS which is fully independent. The AdS/CFT defines the theory in a certain sense, and the conjecture would then be that it reproduces string perturbations in certain limits. But the reason people believe it and understand that it must be true is by working backwards from unitarity to holography to AdS/CFT for extremal string branes. The same general argument works for many extremal black holes (maybe all? you might need infinite horizon size, I don't know, I'll think).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-14 19:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
@RonMaimon why you think people expect AdS/CFT to be relevant to our universe? as far as we know we live in a de Sitter space.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-14 19:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user lurscher
@PeterShor, unitarity is not preserved in general when one measures quantum states, since some information about the system becomes inaccesible, so i agree with you. As you say, the resolution should lie elsewhere

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-14 19:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user lurscher
@lurscher: "AdS/CFT" is shorthand for a collection of results that apply to any space with extremal black holes. We can make a locally 2d AdS space just by spinning or charging a black hole to extremality. The AdS/CFT comes from a collection of much broader intuitions and results due to Susskind, which are called "black hole complementarity" and "holography", and these are general principles which resolve the information loss puzzle by definition. These predict AdS/CFT, so the confirmation of AdS/CFT is a confirmation of these principles.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-14 19:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
Most recent comments show all comments
@MBN: you can take the limit of flat space in AdS/CFT, and you can approximate a positive cosmological constant locally using scalar fields over a large region. It is extremely implausible for AdS black holes to be unitary while other black holes are not.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-14 19:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
@Ron: So the unitarity of any black hole can be reduced to the unitarity of a black hole in five dim. AdS?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-14 19:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user MBN
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

Susskind complementarity has not solved nor settled the problem. Susskind (first paper considereding firewalls correct) and Harlow (with a loophole) withdrew theirs papers. (later Susskind, posted an amending proposition, but not conclusive)

Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?

Polchinsk, et al.

"We argue that the following three statements cannot all be true: (i) Hawking radiation is in a pure state, (ii) the information carried by the radiation is emitted from the region near the horizon, with low energy eective eld theory valid beyond some microscopic distance from the horizon, and (iii) the infalling observer encounters nothing unusual at the horizon. Perhaps the most conservative resolution is that the infalling observer burns up at the horizon. Alternatives would seem to require novel dynamics that nevertheless cause notable violations of semiclassical physics at macroscopic distances from the horizon."

...It is widely believed that an external observer sees this information emitted by complicated dynamics at or very near the horizon, while an observer falling through the horizon encounters nothing special there. These three properties | purity of the Hawking radiation, emission of the information from the horizon, and the absence of drama for the infalling observer | have in particular been incorporated into the axioms of black hole complementarity (BHC)...

...There would be an inconsistency if one were to consider a large Hilbert space that describes both observers at once. Such a Hilbert space appears when quantum gravity is treated as an efective field theory, but it cannot be part of the correct theory of quantum gravity if BHC holds...

...that it uses the naturally produced Hawking pairs rather than introducing ad- ditional entangled ingoing bits. This leads us to a rather dierent conclusion, that the thermalization time does not protect us from an inconsistency of BHC....


then throw the second (information is lost, non unitary evolution) or the third proposition (no drama infalling observer), in any case complementarity is not enough.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-14 19:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user user12103
answered Sep 19, 2012 by user12103 (150 points) [ no revision ]
+ 0 like - 0 dislike

I would expect the resolution of this dilemma to hold no relation whatsoever to AdS/CFT, being it specific to anti de Sitter spaces, which makes it irrelevant to our universe (unless someone proves an analog version for de Sitter spaces, which seems unlikely)

I think the key to the resolution of this dilemma is the false assumption that quantum evolution is unitary everywhere and for all observers.

To explain why the above assumption is false, take for instance the process of measurement of quantum observables. Regardless of the philosophical doctrine of measurement one subscribes to, the fact is that part of the information of the measured state is lost forever to the party that obtained information from the measurement. Yes, when observers do measurements to quantum systems, the global superposition of the system observer-system is still there "somewhere", evolving under perfect unitary evolution. However, some of the information from the measured system that is accessible to the observer is lost forever, even in principle, because of apparent collapse. So, it should be clear in this case that even if evolution is unitary for outside observers, physical observer eigenstates involved in the measurement will observe violations of unitarity.

so, unitarity is clearly not an absolute property of a system evolution, but depends on the "frame" where it is observed, and how the system couples to the observational frame.

Let's speculate how to apply the above in the scenario of the black hole information paradox: an observer outside the black hole sends information inside it, when the information crosses the event horizon, the information is lost forever for him.

However, observers inside the event horizon still see the whole system behaving under unitary evolution; the information sent inside the event horizon is still reachable to them. In particular, all entanglement correlations between states in and out of the horizon are preserved from their point of view, of course, as long as the measurement devices keep sending data inside the horizon for these observers to measure the correlations.

The trouble arises because some people is naively expecting quantum unitary evolution to be an absolute property that is agreed on by all observers, but quantum measurements are a clear example how this is not true in general.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-14 19:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user lurscher
answered Jul 4, 2012 by CharlesJQuarra (555 points) [ no revision ]
Not my downvote (but I think it's justified): The question of black hole unitarity can't be settled by an appeal to quantum measurement, because you can form and evaporate a black hole as an intermediate state, and the resulting evolution is either unitary or not regardless of observation. As far as throwing entangled particles past a horizon, this is resolved today, the particle you leave outside is entangled with horizon degrees of freedom of the black hole. AdS/CFT can be done in our universe by setting up extremal charged (or rotating) black holes, whose near horizon geometry is AdS.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-14 19:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
@RonMaimon, but there is nothing that can evolve unitarily "regardless" of observation; observation breaks unitarity in every case for the observer doing the measurement/coupling with the observation system (unless you are doing clever stuff like those in the quantum eraser experiments, but those are just more cons of hands and cards that try to disguise measurement in reversible transformations). Give me some time to think in your other observations

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-14 19:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user lurscher
I think the poster who uses the title Lurscher makes the most sensible comment I have ever seen on the so called black hole information paradox.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-14 19:47 (UCT), posted by SE-user user21990

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar\varnothing$sicsOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...