Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 4:38:24 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:41 AM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> > The time it takes a black hole (BH) to quantum decay completely is 
>> proportional to the cube of the mass, which means the black hole has 
>> emitted half its mass in 7/8ths of its expected duration. This means 
>> that when a black hole is reduced to half of its original mass the 
>> bipartite entangled photons with the BH emitted a long time ago, for a 
>> solar mass black hole some 10^{67}years, are now entangled with not only 
>> the BH, but with newly emitted photons. This is a big problem. This is 
>> telling us there is a difficulty in making entanglement entropy fit with 
>> the Bekenstein bound and that bipartite entanglements are transformed into 
>> tripartite entanglements. This means quantum unitarity fails. This is not 
>> something people are willing to abandon so easily, so what AMPS [Almheiri, 
>> D. Marolf, J. Polchinski, J. Sully, "Black holes: complementarity or 
>> firewalls?". JHEP. $\bf 2$, (2013). arXiv:1207.3123] proposed was that 
>> instead of losing quantum unitarity maybe the equivalence principle of 
>> general relativity fails. This means the BH becomes a sort of naked 
>> singularity at the horizon, called the firewall, where anything that enters 
>> is just demolished or "burned up" as it would in the interior of a BH.
>>
>
> First of all thanks a lot for taking the time to write a very interesting 
> post. I'm trying to understand why the firewall is hot. I understand that 
> if I'm hovering just above the event horizon in a super powerful rocket 
> time would slow down so much I'd be able to observe the Black Hole evaporate
> , even if it took 10^ 67 years for a observer far from the Black Hole to 
> me it would only take a few seconds, and that means the Hawking Radiation 
> would burn me to a crisp. And I understand that until very recently 
> everybody said that if rather than hovering I was freely falling I wouldn't 
> even notice I've passed the Event Horizon, but if the Equivalence Principle 
> breaks down at that point perhaps I would notice it after all. Is that a 
> productive way to think about the Firewall? I've heard some say it's the 
> breaking of entanglement needed to avoid tripartite entanglements and 
> preserving 
> quantum unitarity that causes the Firewall, but the connection between 
> heat and broken entanglement is not intuitively obvious to me.  
>

What you describe is an amplification of the Hawking radiation by the Unruh 
effect. This can be thought of as due to the huge time dilation where the 
accelerated observer's clock is so slow relative to the outside that a few 
seconds can be billions of years out in asymptotic infinity. This is not 
the same as the firewall. The firewall is really an artificial 
construction. In order to save quantum unitarity one can think the 
equivalence principle is lost and nothing makes it across the horizon. This 
means there would be some way that nothing can enter or leave the black 
hole, which is often thought of as the firewall.
 

>  
>
>> > This provides me with the motivation at least to think that spacetime 
>> and quantum information are much the same.
>>
>
> I think if that could be shown to be less wrong than current ideas it 
> would be one of the greatest triumphs in the history of science.  
>

Verlinde and Verlinde in a paper in 2015 argued there must be an open world 
physics. I tend to agree. The way out as I see it is that if we have 
complete quantum gravitation the back reaction of the metric is then a 
quantum mechanical process that emits gravitons. The transfer from a 
bipartite entanglement to a tripartite entanglement then need not happen. 
There is simply an entanglement swap with gravitons that carry BMS 
symmetiries or charges.
 

>   
>
>> > It also relates to quantum error correction codes and the Hamming 
>> distance. If you have a library where books are not reshelved regularly 
>> then when about half the books become irregularly stacked off their duly 
>> appointed shelves it becomes much harder the reshelve them. This is a limit 
>> on an error correction, and the Page time or firewall is related to this.
>>
>
> I can see how that might cause a big jump in entropy when the Black Hole 
> reaches the Page time, but the universe isn't old enough for any Black Hole 
> to have reached the Page time so I don't see the connection to a ultra hot 
> firewall. What causes the heat?
>
> John K Clark
>

The only way I can imagine a large black hole with a firewall is if the 
firewall is some extremal condition. For the Kerr solution the inner and 
outer horizons merge for angular momentum parameter equal to the mass. The 
surface of the black hole is then actually zero temperature. This would 
then mean gravitation has a chirality where Hawking radiation has a 
preferred handedness and the remaining black hole is left with opposite 
angular momentum. Ch

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Grayson, Hi everybody,

Like every years, the quantity of work is growing, more or less up to June, so 
I apologise in advance for answering more slowly.


> On 12 Mar 2019, at 22:54, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 12:18:50 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 11 Mar 2019, at 09:54, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 1:43:05 AM UTC-6, Liz R wrote:
>> I thought QM was deterministic, at least mathematically - and I guess in the 
>> MWI?
>> 
>> QM is deterministic, but only as far as reconstructing wf's as time is 
>> reversed, but it can't reconstruct individual events which are without 
>> ostensible cause. As for the MWI, I don't think it's deterministic since the 
>> different branches are never in causal contact. AG 
> 
> It has to be.
> 
> So If I am in one world of many, how can I time reverse my outcome to 
> reconstruct something from another world, the one that gave rise to the many 
> worlds? AG

By amnesia, like Belinfante showed that we can reverse the Schoredinger cat 
experience, and even statistically get the cat alive back, with a chance of 
1/4. That is sometimes used to claim that Everett theory (QM without collapse) 
is testable. 


>  
> Without wave collapse the evolution is “just” a unitary transformation. It is 
> a vector rotating in some (Hilbert) space. Only the wave collapse postulate 
> bring 3p-indterminacy. In Everett the indeterminacy is explained like in 
> arithmetic, or combinator, with the digital mechanistic hypothesis (in the 
> cognitive science, not in physics).. 
> 
> Can't we keep your theory out of this? AG 

My theory, Mechanism (in cognitive science), is the same as the one used by 
Everett, or Darwin. I have no theory of mine. I have a theorem, or proposition. 
If you are skeptical, that is the good attitude. 
Yet, without mechanism, I can hardly make sense of QM at all, nor of 
consciousness, etc. Things get to much “magical” for me.

You say also, in the next post,

> On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 12:18:51 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 11 Mar 2019, at 03:16, agrays...@ <>gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> They say if information is lost, determination is toast. 
> 
> That is not correct. If information is lost, reversibility is toast, but 
> determination can be conserved.
> 
> If reversibility is lost, how can determinism be preserved? It can't, and 
> this is the position Hawking took IIUC. What's your definition of 
> determinism? Doesn't it require the laws of physics to be time reversible? AG 


If reversibility is lost, you can’t recover the past from the present, but you 
might still been able to predict the future. Reversibility is a sort of 
determinism on the past, which breaks down when you loss information.

The computation of 2+2 is deterministic on all computer, but not all would be 
able to go from the result (4) to the past (2+2). But with a reversible 
computer when computing 2 + 2, you will get 4, plus some information that is 
locally discarded, but still retrievable in principle, so that you can come 
back to “2+2”.


> Typically the Kestrek bird K is irreversible, as it eliminates information 
> Kxy = x. From KSI you get S, but from S, even knowing it comes from the 
> application of K, you cannot retrieve I. Similarly with addition and 
> multiplication in arithmetic. From 18 you can’t guess it cames from 7 and 11. 
> Erasing information is common.
> 
> Some does not tolerate that, so Church works in the base {I, B, W, C}, where 
> I is [x]x, B is [x][y][z] x(yz), etc. 
> 
> That base is not combinatorial complete, but is still Turing complete, 
> illustrating that we can do computation without eliminating any information. 
> (None of I, B, C and X eliminates information)
> 
> But the quantum eliminates even the combinator W (Wxy = xyy), or the lamda 
> expression [x][y]. xyy. That is, we cannot eliminate information, but we 
> cannot duplicate it either!
> 
> Now, the problem is that the BCI combinator algebra are not Turing-complete. 
> It is the core of the physical reality, and Turing universality needs the 
> addition of modal “combinators”.
> 
> I have no idea what you're referring to. AG 

I guess you have not followed the combinator thread. It starts from zero. 
Unlike QM which asks for a serious background in mathematics, combinators can 
be understood by any kids, without any mathematical knowledge. I have very 
young students this year who asked me this introduction. The recent thread on 
the combinators comes from that experience. Just look at the first thread and 
ask question. It is very easy, and the combinators are very handy to talk about 
low level computation, including how to illustrate determinism and 
reversibility. It is not needed, and if you have no the time nor the interest, 
it is OK.

Soon, or a bit later, I will propose an “official” definition of what a 
computation is (mainly a sequence of combinator obtained 

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[John Clark]

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:41 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The time it takes a black hole (BH) to quantum decay completely is
> proportional to the cube of the mass, which means the black hole has
> emitted half its mass in 7/8ths of its expected duration. This means that
> when a black hole is reduced to half of its original mass the bipartite
> entangled photons with the BH emitted a long time ago, for a solar mass
> black hole some 10^{67}years, are now entangled with not only the BH, but
> with newly emitted photons. This is a big problem. This is telling us there
> is a difficulty in making entanglement entropy fit with the Bekenstein
> bound and that bipartite entanglements are transformed into tripartite
> entanglements. This means quantum unitarity fails. This is not something
> people are willing to abandon so easily, so what AMPS [Almheiri, D. Marolf,
> J. Polchinski, J. Sully, "Black holes: complementarity or firewalls?".
> JHEP. $\bf 2$, (2013). arXiv:1207.3123] proposed was that instead of losing
> quantum unitarity maybe the equivalence principle of general relativity
> fails. This means the BH becomes a sort of naked singularity at the
> horizon, called the firewall, where anything that enters is just demolished
> or "burned up" as it would in the interior of a BH.
>

First of all thanks a lot for taking the time to write a very interesting
post. I'm trying to understand why the firewall is hot. I understand that
if I'm hovering just above the event horizon in a super powerful rocket
time would slow down so much I'd be able to observe the Black Hole evaporate
, even if it took 10^ 67 years for a observer far from the Black Hole to me
it would only take a few seconds, and that means the Hawking Radiation
would burn me to a crisp. And I understand that until very recently
everybody said that if rather than hovering I was freely falling I wouldn't
even notice I've passed the Event Horizon, but if the Equivalence Principle
breaks down at that point perhaps I would notice it after all. Is that a
productive way to think about the Firewall? I've heard some say it's the
breaking of entanglement needed to avoid tripartite entanglements and
preserving
quantum unitarity that causes the Firewall, but the connection between heat
and broken entanglement is not intuitively obvious to me.


> > This provides me with the motivation at least to think that spacetime
> and quantum information are much the same.
>

I think if that could be shown to be less wrong than current ideas it would
be one of the greatest triumphs in the history of science.


> > It also relates to quantum error correction codes and the Hamming
> distance. If you have a library where books are not reshelved regularly
> then when about half the books become irregularly stacked off their duly
> appointed shelves it becomes much harder the reshelve them. This is a limit
> on an error correction, and the Page time or firewall is related to this.
>

I can see how that might cause a big jump in entropy when the Black Hole
reaches the Page time, but the universe isn't old enough for any Black Hole
to have reached the Page time so I don't see the connection to a ultra hot
firewall. What causes the heat?

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

 
 
  On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 7:04 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:  
 On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:43 PM John Clark  wrote:

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:42 PM Lawrence Crowell 
 wrote:


> all the radiation emitted is entangled with the black hole, which would then 
> mean the entanglement entropy increases beyond the Bekenstein bound. 


Could nature be trying to tell us that the Bekenstein bound is simply wrong and 
spacetime is contentious and can store information at scales even smaller than 
the Planck area? After all as far as I know there is no experimental evidence 
the Bekenstein bound exists or that spacetime ends when things get smaller than 
10^-35 meters.

Points that I have made many times, here and elsewhere. No one is listening, it 
would appear. Actually, though, Penrose has worked this out for himself. See 
"Roads to Reality".
Speaking to this there exists some tantalizing indirect measured evidence for 
the the scale of any structure of spacetime. An ESA satellite (luckily captured 
a distant gamma ray burster event) and was able measure a very powerful and 
also very distant gamma-ray burster across multiple different frequencies as it 
happened -- capturing signal data from gamma ray to x-ray, ultraviet, visible 
light, infrared and various radio frequencies) and using this data was able to 
experimentally establish that spacetime is in fact smooth -- e.g. not pixelated 
-- down to scales far smaller than the Planck scale. 
Even though we cannot directly measure anything at this exceedingly small scale 
(it would require an atom smasher as big as our galaxy) this elegant experiment 
leveraged the more than 9 billion light years that light from this event 
travelled through spacetime in order to reach us 9 billion years later to infer 
these conclusions excluding the possibility of spacetime being pixelated at 
planck scale and even to a degree far smaller than the planck scale. 
The 9 billion light years these various frequency photons travelled was itself 
used as a kind of lever to deduce that which we cannot know directly. 
Basically, if I recall, it was based on the assumption that measurable 
properties of photons ( forget which one exactly) would over vast distances 
become subtly affected by repeatedly crossing pixel boundaries at many various 
pixelation scales of spacetime, which were one by one excluded down to some 
incredibly small scale (if I recall like a trillion times smaller than the 
Planck scale).So far I have not heard of any falsification of the results of 
this experimental measurements. 
Chris de Morsella 
Bruce 

John K Clark



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 12:18:51 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Mar 2019, at 03:16, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> They say if information is lost, determination is toast. 
>
>
> That is not correct. If information is lost, reversibility is toast, but 
> determination can be conserved.
>

*If reversibility is lost, how can determinism be preserved? It can't, and 
this is the position Hawking took IIUC. What's your definition of 
determinism? Doesn't it require the laws of physics to be time reversible? 
AG *

>
> Typically the Kestrek bird K is irreversible, as it eliminates information 
> Kxy = x. From KSI you get S, but from S, even knowing it comes from the 
> application of K, you cannot retrieve I. Similarly with addition and 
> multiplication in arithmetic. From 18 you can’t guess it cames from 7 and 
> 11. Erasing information is common.
>
> Some does not tolerate that, so Church works in the base {I, B, W, C}, 
> where I is [x]x, B is [x][y][z] x(yz), etc. 
>
> That base is not combinatorial complete, but is still Turing complete, 
> illustrating that we can do computation without eliminating any 
> information. (None of I, B, C and X eliminates information)
>
> But the quantum eliminates even the combinator W (Wxy = xyy), or the lamda 
> expression [x][y]. xyy. That is, we cannot eliminate information, but we 
> cannot duplicate it either!
>
> Now, the problem is that the BCI combinator algebra are not 
> Turing-complete. It is the core of the physical reality, and Turing 
> universality needs the addition of modal “combinators”.
>

*I have no idea what you're referring to. AG *

>
>
>
>
> But doesn't QM inherently affirm information loss? I mean, although, say, 
> the SWE can be run backward in time to reconstruct any wf it describes, we 
> can never reconstruct or play backward Born's rule, in the sense of knowing 
> what original particular state gave a particular outcome. That is, there is 
> no rule in QM to predict a particular outcome, so how can we expect, that 
> given some outcome, we can know from whence it arose? AG
>
>
>
> You can run backward by discarding information. Born rule, or the 
> projection inherent in the measurement discard information, when you 
> abandon the collapse postulate. That is why “fusing” histories can be done 
> by relative amnesia, and also that is how Church emulate “local kestrels” 
> capable to “apparently eliminate information”, but only with selected 
> objects, like the numbers. K *n* *m* = *n* 
>
> A quantum computer (essentially irreversible during the processing) is 
> Turing complete, and so can simulate all classical computers discarding 
> information all the times, but in the details, everything is locally 
> determinist and reversible.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 12:18:50 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Mar 2019, at 09:54, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 1:43:05 AM UTC-6, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> I thought QM was deterministic, at least mathematically - and I guess in 
>> the MWI?
>>
>
> *QM is deterministic, but only as far as reconstructing wf's as time is 
> reversed, but it can't reconstruct individual events which are without 
> ostensible cause. As for the MWI, I don't think it's deterministic since 
> the different branches are never in causal contact. AG *
>
>
> It has to be. 
>

*So If I am in one world of many, how can I time reverse my outcome to 
reconstruct something from another world, the one that gave rise to the 
many worlds? AG*
 

> Without wave collapse the evolution is “just” a unitary transformation. It 
> is a vector rotating in some (Hilbert) space. Only the wave collapse 
> postulate bring 3p-indterminacy. In Everett the indeterminacy is explained 
> like in arithmetic, or combinator, with the digital mechanistic hypothesis 
> (in the cognitive science, not in physics).. 
>

*Can't we keep your theory out of this? AG *

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>> I mean everyone can't have forgotten quantum indeterminacy when 
>> discussing the BHIP, surely?
>>
>
>  
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Mar 2019, at 03:16, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> They say if information is lost, determination is toast.

That is not correct. If information is lost, reversibility is toast, but 
determination can be conserved.

Typically the Kestrek bird K is irreversible, as it eliminates information Kxy 
= x. From KSI you get S, but from S, even knowing it comes from the application 
of K, you cannot retrieve I. Similarly with addition and multiplication in 
arithmetic. From 18 you can’t guess it cames from 7 and 11. Erasing information 
is common.

Some does not tolerate that, so Church works in the base {I, B, W, C}, where I 
is [x]x, B is [x][y][z] x(yz), etc. 

That base is not combinatorial complete, but is still Turing complete, 
illustrating that we can do computation without eliminating any information. 
(None of I, B, C and X eliminates information)

But the quantum eliminates even the combinator W (Wxy = xyy), or the lamda 
expression [x][y]. xyy. That is, we cannot eliminate information, but we cannot 
duplicate it either!

Now, the problem is that the BCI combinator algebra are not Turing-complete. It 
is the core of the physical reality, and Turing universality needs the addition 
of modal “combinators”.




> But doesn't QM inherently affirm information loss? I mean, although, say, the 
> SWE can be run backward in time to reconstruct any wf it describes, we can 
> never reconstruct or play backward Born's rule, in the sense of knowing what 
> original particular state gave a particular outcome. That is, there is no 
> rule in QM to predict a particular outcome, so how can we expect, that given 
> some outcome, we can know from whence it arose? AG


You can run backward by discarding information. Born rule, or the projection 
inherent in the measurement discard information, when you abandon the collapse 
postulate. That is why “fusing” histories can be done by relative amnesia, and 
also that is how Church emulate “local kestrels” capable to “apparently 
eliminate information”, but only with selected objects, like the numbers. K n m 
= n 

A quantum computer (essentially irreversible during the processing) is Turing 
complete, and so can simulate all classical computers discarding information 
all the times, but in the details, everything is locally determinist and 
reversible.

Bruno





> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 11 Mar 2019, at 09:54, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 1:43:05 AM UTC-6, Liz R wrote:
> I thought QM was deterministic, at least mathematically - and I guess in the 
> MWI?
> 
> QM is deterministic, but only as far as reconstructing wf's as time is 
> reversed, but it can't reconstruct individual events which are without 
> ostensible cause. As for the MWI, I don't think it's deterministic since the 
> different branches are never in causal contact. AG 

It has to be. Without wave collapse the evolution is “just” a unitary 
transformation. It is a vector rotating in some (Hilbert) space. Only the wave 
collapse postulate bring 3p-indterminacy. In Everett the indeterminacy is 
explained like in arithmetic, or combinator, with the digital mechanistic 
hypothesis (in the cognitive science, not in physics).. 

Bruno



> 
> I mean everyone can't have forgotten quantum indeterminacy when discussing 
> the BHIP, surely?
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 8:04:57 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:43 PM John Clark  > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:42 PM Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote:
>>
>> > all the radiation emitted is entangled with the black hole, which 
>>> would then mean the entanglement entropy increases beyond the Bekenstein 
>>> bound. 
>>
>>
>>
>> Could nature be trying to tell us that the Bekenstein bound is simply 
>> wrong and spacetime is contentious and can store information at scales 
>> even smaller than the Planck area? After all as far as I know there is no 
>> experimental evidence the Bekenstein bound exists or that spacetime ends 
>> when things get smaller than 10^-35 meters.
>>
>
> Points that I have made many times, here and elsewhere. No one is 
> listening, it would appear. Actually, though, Penrose has worked this out 
> for himself. See "Roads to Reality".
>
> Bruce 
>

I have of course read Penrose's *Roads to Reality*. Towards the end he 
makes a pitch for his R-process that he introduced in the 1980s and made a 
central feature of his *Emperor's New Mind*. The problem is that it is most 
likely a sort of semi-classical phenomenology or effective theory. It is a 
result of ignoring how spacetime and quantum fields transform by the same 
rules. Sure if you do that you will get the R-process, or the previous idea 
of the super $-matrix by Hawking. 

Quantum information is fundamentally unitless, and this as a result is 
probably the best quantity to focus on as fundamental. Issues of the Planck 
scale, mass units and even the scale invariant breaking of inflation are 
challenges, for if quantum information is unitless it should then be 
absolutely conformal. So questions are open. Penrose just throws in the 
towel and says this violation just happens. There is no proof against this, 
but in spite of Hossenfelder's admonition against invoking beauty I find 
the R-process to be less than elegant and if nature were fundamentally this 
way, rather than as some effective theory, it would be rather disappointing.

LC
 

>
> John K Clark
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 7:43:54 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:42 PM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> > all the radiation emitted is entangled with the black hole, which would 
>> then mean the entanglement entropy increases beyond the Bekenstein bound. 
>
>
>
> Could nature be trying to tell us that the Bekenstein bound is simply 
> wrong and spacetime is contentious and can store information at scales 
> even smaller than the Planck area? After all as far as I know there is no 
> experimental evidence the Bekenstein bound exists or that spacetime ends 
> when things get smaller than 10^-35 meters.
>
> John K Clark
>

Warning, this is a bit long, but I hope informative and interesting. John's 
question pertains to the Planck scale and Bekenstein bound. Really the 
issue of quantum information and the firewall is on scales considerably 
larger. I do address some conundrums with the Planck scale towards the end.

As with the analogue of the thermal cavity the entanglement of radiation 
emitted shifts from radiation entangled with the cavity or photon emitting 
hot atoms, to entanglement between photons. Photons previously emitted and 
entangled with atoms, then become entangled with subsequent photons emitted 
by these atoms. It is interesting how entanglement is really all around us, 
but it is mostly not controlled and is an aspect of thermodynamics. Anyway 
this occurrence happens at a time called the Page time, after Don Page who 
first identified this. As this happens when around half the photons are 
emitted, the same happens with black holes. When about half the mass of a 
black hole has been emitted as Hawking radiation about half of its initial 
mass. The time it takes a black hole (BH) to quantum decay completely is 
proportional to the cube of the mass, which means the black hole has 
emitted half its mass in 7/8ths of its expected duration.

This means that when a black hole is reduced to half of its original mass 
the bipartite entangled photons with the BH emitted a long time ago, for a 
solar mass black hole some 10^{67}years, are now entangled with not only 
the BH, but with newly emitted photons. This is a big problem. This is 
telling us there is a difficulty in making entanglement entropy fit with 
the Bekenstein bound and that bipartite entanglements are transformed into 
tripartite entanglements. This means quantum unitarity fails. This is not 
something people are willing to abandon so easily, so what AMPS [Almheiri, 
D. Marolf, J. Polchinski, J. Sully, "Black holes: complementarity or 
firewalls?". JHEP. $\bf 2$, (2013). arXiv:1207.3123] proposed was that 
instead of losing quantum unitarity maybe the equivalence principle of 
general relativity fails. This means the BH becomes a sort of naked 
singularity at the horizon, called the firewall, where anything that enters 
is just demolished or "burned up" as it would in the interior of a BH.

If quantum mechanics builds up spacetime as entanglements, or equivalently 
if spacetime is an emergent phenomenon of quantum mechanics (QM), then the 
unitarity of QM and the equivalence principle (EP) of general relativity 
(GR) may be either equivalent in some way or that they share a duality. If 
we think about it the Einstein field equation 

R_{μν} - ½ Rg_{μν} = (8πG/c^4)T_{μν}

Tells us that weak gravitation on the left side of the equal sign is equal 
to strongly interacting stuff on the right. In a quantum mechanical setting 
the left hand side is quantum mechanical at extreme energy or the UV, while 
the right hand side is all around us at low or moderate energy or the IR. 
There is then a duality between quantum gravitation at extreme energy vs 
quantum field theory at lower energy. 

The holographic principle of black holes indicates that any system that 
approaches a black hole becomes less localized as seen by an asymptotic 
observer. The optical lensing of spacetime spreads any wave function or for 
that matter a local field amplitude across the near horizon region. Quantum 
field theory with its assumptions of Wightman conditions to remove quantum 
nonlocality may no longer be applicable. These were imposed in part to 
remove nonlocal quantum physics, which in high energy is on a very small 
scale from the physics one observes with detectors on a larger scale. 

The best thing to come out of superstring theory is Maldecena's 
correspondence between the anti-de Sitter spacetime of dimension N with the 
conformal field theory on the boundary in N - 1 dimensions. This gives me a 
sense that superstring theory has maybe far less to do with TeV scale 
physics and a lot more to do with quantum cosmology. In effect this 
connects a global physics of cosmology in the bulk of an AdS spacetime with 
the local conformal field theory on the boundary with one dimension less. 
This is a quantum spacetime version of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem! If one 
expands the AdS action S = ∫d^4x\sqrt{-g}R with R_{abcd}R^{abcd} as

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 9:16:12 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> They say if information is lost, determination is toast. But doesn't QM 
> inherently affirm information loss? I mean, although, say, the SWE can be 
> run backward in time to reconstruct any wf it describes, we can never 
> reconstruct or play backward Born's rule, in the sense of knowing what 
> original particular state gave a particular outcome. That is, there is no 
> rule in QM to predict a particular outcome, so how can we expect, that 
> given some outcome, we can know from whence it arose? AG
>



We basically know that general relativity (GR) is wrong at the small scale, 
and that quantum mechanics (QM) is "gravity challenged".

The "information" paradox is likely just a confusion caused by not having a 
good theory yet to replace GR or update QM, or both.


Here are two items worth considering to possibly be used to resolve this

*Spacetime could be simultaneously continuous and discrete, in the same way 
that information can be*
New Journal of Physics 12 (2010)
Achim Kempf
Departments of Applied Mathematics and Physics, University of Waterloo
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/12/11/115001/meta


*Beyond Einstein*
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php

Theoretical physicists have been questioning if singularities really exist 
through complex mathematical equations over the past several decades with 
little success until now. LSU Department of Physics & Astronomy Associate 
Professor Parampreet Singh and collaborators LSU Postdoctoral Researcher 
Javier Olmedo and Abhay Ashtekar, the Eberly Professor of Physics at Penn 
State developed new mathematical equations that go beyond Einstein's theory 
of general relativity overcoming its key limitation--the central 
singularity of black holes. 

Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity in 
the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic physics, or quantum 
mechanics, with gravity, which explains the dynamics of space and time. 
Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes in loop 
quantum gravity and showed that black hole singularity does not exist.

"In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided as small 
as we want. This is essentially the cause of the singularity where the 
gravitational field becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the fabric 
of space-time has a tile-like structure, which cannot be divided beyond the 
smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this is the case inside 
black holes and therefore *there is no singularity*," Singh said.

Instead of singularity, loop quantum gravity predicts a funnel to another 
branch of the space-time.

"These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum excitations'-- which 
resolve the singularity problem are orders of magnitude smaller than we can 
detect with today's technology, but we have precise mathematical equations 
that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the founding 
fathers of loop quantum gravity.

"At LSU, we have been developing state-of-the-art computational techniques 
to extract physical consequences of these physical equations using 
supercomputers, bringing us closer to reliably test quantum gravity," Singh 
said.

Einstein's theory fails not only at the center of the black holes but also 
to explain how the universe was created from the Big Bang singularity. 
Therefore, a decade ago, Ashtekar, Singh and collaborators began to extend 
physics beyond the Big Bang and make new predictions using loop quantum 
gravity. Using the mathematical equations and computational techniques of 
loop quantum gravity, they showed that the Big Bang is replaced by the "Big 
Bounce." But, the problem of overcoming black hole singularity is 
exceptionally complex.

"The fate of black holes in a quantum theory of gravity is, in my view, the 
most important problem in theoretical physics," said Jorge Pullin, the 
Horace Hearne professor of theoretical physics at LSU, who was not part of 
this study.


- pt 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[Bruce Kellett]

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:43 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:42 PM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > all the radiation emitted is entangled with the black hole, which would
>> then mean the entanglement entropy increases beyond the Bekenstein bound.
>
>
>
> Could nature be trying to tell us that the Bekenstein bound is simply
> wrong and spacetime is contentious and can store information at scales
> even smaller than the Planck area? After all as far as I know there is no
> experimental evidence the Bekenstein bound exists or that spacetime ends
> when things get smaller than 10^-35 meters.
>

Points that I have made many times, here and elsewhere. No one is
listening, it would appear. Actually, though, Penrose has worked this out
for himself. See "Roads to Reality".

Bruce

John K Clark
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:42 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> all the radiation emitted is entangled with the black hole, which would
> then mean the entanglement entropy increases beyond the Bekenstein bound.



Could nature be trying to tell us that the Bekenstein bound is simply wrong
and spacetime is contentious and can store information at scales even
smaller than the Planck area? After all as far as I know there is no
experimental evidence the Bekenstein bound exists or that spacetime ends
when things get smaller than 10^-35 meters.

John K Clark



>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:14 PM  wrote:


*> How is information preserved in usual QM? If a particle bends in one
> direction, and you play the wf back in time, how do you recover a particle
> which will bend in the same direction, exactly? AG *
>

You can't replay the motion of a particle because that is not
deterministic, but the wave function* is* deterministic so you can replay
that, you can go back to a point where the particle had the same quantum
state and had the same probability to go left or right; or at least you can
if information is not erased. But if it is then all the probabilities don't
add up to 1 and the very concept of probability turns into gibberish.
Something is very wrong when the 2  theories try to link up but we don't
know if the problem is with General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics or both.

John K Clark



>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, March 10, 2019 at 8:16:12 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> They say if information is lost, determination is toast. But doesn't QM 
> inherently affirm information loss? I mean, although, say, the SWE can be 
> run backward in time to reconstruct any wf it describes, we can never 
> reconstruct or play backward Born's rule, in the sense of knowing what 
> original particular state gave a particular outcome. That is, there is no 
> rule in QM to predict a particular outcome, so how can we expect, that 
> given some outcome, we can know from whence it arose? AG
>

The initial problem really amounts to the fact Hawking radiation is emitted 
by black holes as a semi-classical system. The black hole emits fields and 
particles that evolve according to unitary quantum mechanics, but the black 
hole adjusts in this calculation by a classical metric back reaction. This 
means the unitary evolution of this process is incomplete because some 
unitary evolution of quantum gravity states are not accounted for. There is 
then a whole set of vacua that can exist, such as Boulware vacua, and this 
statistical ensemble enters into the calculation. As a result a black hole 
that is built up from pure quantum states emits radiation out, think of 
this as a scattering process, in a statistical ensemble. This is equivalent 
to saying the information of a pure state has been lost.

This was overcome, at least in principle, with the holographic principle. 
The time dilation and transverse spreading of a string or quantum wave over 
the horizon of a black hole as observed by a distant observer means this 
information is not really lost, but this statistical ensemble results from 
a sort of coarse graining. The asymptotic observer witnesses quantum states 
red shift by the quanta of radiation they may emit, slow down and the 
process of observation is more difficult. Eventually all the observer 
detects are gravitational states, or the increase in gravity of the black 
hole. These are then the Planck mass or frequency modes of quantum 
gravitation. this was thought to overcome the problem of information loss, 
but then another problem arose.

The black hole information problem as it currently stands is a problem with 
entanglement. This is the firewall. The problem here is that when a black 
hole emits a quanta of radiation that quanta is entangled with the black 
hole. We can use the old heuristic of the particle and antiparticle pair, 
where one falls in and the other escapes or a negative energy photon enters 
and a positive energy escapes. This means Hawking radiation is entangled 
with the black hole. This entanglement is a bipartite entanglement with two 
sets of states. A thermal cavity does much the same in that a photon 
emitted is entangled with an atom that emitted it. Entanglement entropy 
then grows. However, with the thermal cavity after about half the energy is 
released more of the photons emitted are entangled with photons previously 
emitted. With the black hole since Hawking radiation is a vacuum process 
all the radiation emitted is entangled with the black hole, which would 
then mean the entanglement entropy increases beyond the Bekenstein bound. 
It would be as if a cooling thermal cavity had entanglement entropy 
increase to a maximum when it is finally cooled off. 

So how to manage keeping the entanglement entropy of the black hole from 
growing? We need some way of sending that entanglement entropy out into the 
universe. So we then have Hawking radiation emitted later entangled with 
previously emitted Hawking radiation. That sounds fine, but since Hawking 
radiation is a vacuum process with the black hole we still must have 
entanglement with the black hole. The only difference is most of the 
entropy is removed to the outside universe. However, this means the old 
Hawking radiation emitted in a bipartite entanglement is now in tripartite 
entanglement. This means entanglement phase has been created ex nihilio, 
which is a quantum version of violating the classical law of conservation 
of phase space volume. This is called a violation of quantum monogamy.

Now to toot my own horn. I think I have a solution, or more like a recipe 
for a partial solution, to this problem. I just finished writing a rough 
draft of a paper on this. I will not go into this for it involves 
entanglement of quantum states with BMS symmetries in a nonlocal 
entanglement swap. It is a bit dense to go into here.

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[smitra]

On 12-03-2019 01:14, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 2:41:13 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:


On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:18 PM  wrote:


We can calculate the wave function exactly but the wave function

does not determine exactly how matter will behave.

_THAT'S PRECISELY MY POINT. IF WE CAN'T DETERMINE EXACTLY
HOW MATTER WILL BEHAVE, HOW CAN WE GO BACK IN TIME TO RECONSTRUCT
THE ORIGINAL STATE FOR SINGLE TRIALS. IF WE CAN'T DO THAT, THEN
QM INHERENTLY CONTRADICTS DETERMINISM, SO WHY MAKE AN ISSUE ABOUT BH
INFORMATION LOSS? AG_


Schrodinger says If you know what the wave function of a particle is
now then you can predict what the wave function will be tomorrow and
determine what it was yesterday. Even more important Schrodinger says
his function is unitary, that means probabilities are conserved, but
that can only happen if information is conserved.

For the very idea of probability to make sense everything must add up
to exactly 1; if you calculate there is a 70% chance an electron will
curve to the left and a 40% chance it will curve to the right then
you'll know you've calculated nonsense. Black Holes seem to destroy
information but if so then the Schrodinger Wave Function can't be
unitary and thus is total nonsense, but it has been tested many many
times and it always works so it can't be total nonsense. That is the
paradox.

HOW IS INFORMATION PRESERVED IN USUAL QM? IF A PARTICLE BENDS IN ONE
DIRECTION, AND YOU PLAY THE WF BACK IN TIME, HOW DO YOU RECOVER A
PARTICLE WHICH WILL BEND IN THE SAME DIRECTION, EXACTLY? AG

In conventional QM we consider the predictions of QM to be valid in a 
statistical sense. Information is then conserved in the sense that the 
time evolution of a large ensemble of identically prepared systems on 
which  measurements on each individual system is performed, doesn't 
change the information content.


Saibal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 2:41:13 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:18 PM > 
> wrote:
>
> >>We can calculate the wave function exactly but the wave function does 
>>> not determine exactly how matter will behave. 
>>>
>>
>> *That's precisely my point. If we can't determine exactly how matter will 
>> behave, how can we go back in time to reconstruct the original state for 
>> single trials. If we can't do that, then QM inherently contradicts 
>> determinism, so why make an issue about BH information loss? AG*
>>
>
>
> Schrodinger says If you know what the wave function of a particle is now 
> then you can predict what the wave function will be tomorrow and determine 
> what it was yesterday. Even more important Schrodinger says his function is 
> unitary, that means probabilities are conserved, but that can only happen 
> if information is conserved. 
>
> For the very idea of probability to make sense everything must add up to 
> exactly 1; if you calculate there is a 70% chance an electron will curve to 
> the left and a 40% chance it will curve to the right then you'll know 
> you've calculated nonsense. Black Holes seem to destroy information but if 
> so then the Schrodinger Wave Function can't be unitary and thus is total 
> nonsense, but it has been tested many many times and it always works so 
> it can't be total nonsense. That is the paradox.
>

*How is information preserved in usual QM? If a particle bends in one 
direction, and you play the wf back in time, how do you recover a particle 
which will bend in the same direction, exactly? AG *

>
> If all this confused you welcome to the club, nobody knows how to resolve 
> this paradox but when they do they'll probably resolve the conflict between 
> General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics too.  
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:18 PM  wrote:

>>We can calculate the wave function exactly but the wave function does not
>> determine exactly how matter will behave.
>>
>
> *That's precisely my point. If we can't determine exactly how matter will
> behave, how can we go back in time to reconstruct the original state for
> single trials. If we can't do that, then QM inherently contradicts
> determinism, so why make an issue about BH information loss? AG*
>


Schrodinger says If you know what the wave function of a particle is now
then you can predict what the wave function will be tomorrow and determine
what it was yesterday. Even more important Schrodinger says his function is
unitary, that means probabilities are conserved, but that can only happen
if information is conserved.

For the very idea of probability to make sense everything must add up to
exactly 1; if you calculate there is a 70% chance an electron will curve to
the left and a 40% chance it will curve to the right then you'll know
you've calculated nonsense. Black Holes seem to destroy information but if
so then the Schrodinger Wave Function can't be unitary and thus is total
nonsense, but it has been tested many many times and it always works so it
can't be total nonsense. That is the paradox.

If all this confused you welcome to the club, nobody knows how to resolve
this paradox but when they do they'll probably resolve the conflict between
General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics too.

John K Clark


>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 7:40:59 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 4:54 AM > wrote:
>
> *> QM is deterministic, but only as far as reconstructing wf's*
>>
>
> We can calculate the wave function exactly but the wave function does not 
> determine exactly how matter will behave. 
>

*That's precisely my point. If we can't determine exactly how matter will 
behave, how can we go back in time to reconstruct the original state for 
single trials. If we can't do that, then QM inherently contradicts 
determinism, so why make an issue about BH information loss? AG*
 

> As far as the Black Hole information paradox goes solving that is one of 
> the deepest problems in cutting edge physics. It all boils down to the fact 
> that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, although both work great on 
> their own, don't work well together. 
>
>  John K Clark
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 4:54 AM  wrote:

*> QM is deterministic, but only as far as reconstructing wf's*
>

We can calculate the wave function exactly but the wave function does not
determine exactly how matter will behave. As far as the Black Hole
information paradox goes solving that is one of the deepest problems in
cutting edge physics. It all boils down to the fact that General Relativity
and Quantum Mechanics, although both work great on their own, don't work
well together.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, March 11, 2019 at 1:43:05 AM UTC-6, Liz R wrote:
>
> I thought QM was deterministic, at least mathematically - and I guess in 
> the MWI?
>

*QM is deterministic, but only as far as reconstructing wf's as time is 
reversed, but it can't reconstruct individual events which are without 
ostensible cause. As for the MWI, I don't think it's deterministic since 
the different branches are never in causal contact. AG *

>
> I mean everyone can't have forgotten quantum indeterminacy when discussing 
> the BHIP, surely?
>

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Black holes and the information paradox

[Liz R]

I thought QM was deterministic, at least mathematically - and I guess in 
the MWI?

I mean everyone can't have forgotten quantum indeterminacy when discussing 
the BHIP, surely?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Black holes and the information paradox

[agrayson2000]

They say if information is lost, determination is toast. But doesn't QM 
inherently affirm information loss? I mean, although, say, the SWE can be 
run backward in time to reconstruct any wf it describes, we can never 
reconstruct or play backward Born's rule, in the sense of knowing what 
original particular state gave a particular outcome. That is, there is no 
rule in QM to predict a particular outcome, so how can we expect, that 
given some outcome, we can know from whence it arose? AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.