More... Black Hole Information Paradox 2. Stretched Complementarity In this post, which continues Black Hole Paradox 1. Susskind vs. Hawking <http://www.unitaryflow.com/2013/09/bh-paradox-1-susskind-vs-hawking.html>, I will explain my reasons for not accepting the black hole complementarity principle (BHC). I will argue that, in the process of inventing this principle, Susskind, Thorlacius and Uglum (STU) found an important result, but ignored it.
In the book *L. Susskind, J. Lindesay, An introduction to black holes, information and the string theory revolution <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9812561315?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=9812561315&linkCode=xm2&tag=unitflow-20>, World Scientific, 2005*, is explained that three fundamental principles make the foundation of BHC: 1. The principle of information conservation 2. The equivalence principle 3. The quantum xerox principle *The principle of information conservation* was in fact what it had to be proven for the case of black hole information. To allow conservation, STU assumed that an external observer will see that information in Hawking evaporation. They assumed implicitly that information remains outside the event horizon, at least for an external observer. So, they replaced implicitly 1. with 1'. The principle of information conservation by avoiding falling in the black hole. *The equivalence principle* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Equivalence_Principle> is the fundamental principle in General Relativity. It states that inertia and gravity are two faces of the same coin. Accelerated motion behaves as gravity, and gravity is due to the fact that spacetime is curved, so that reference frames cannot be without acceleration. *The quantum xerox principle* is in fact the no-cloning theorem <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_cloning_theorem>, which states that unknown quantum states cannot be copied. If we would be able to copy an unknown quantum state, then linearity of Quantum Mechanics would be violated. It is amazing that this simple but profound result was discovered only 30 years ago, given that the proof is so simple. There is a funny story <http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205076> about this. Asher Peres was anonymous reviewer for Foundations of Physics, and refereed a paper in which superluminal communication was predicted in Quantum Mechanics <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00729622>. He explained in the report that the result must be wrong, and even the author is aware. However, realizing that this mistaken result would stimulate the research, and a more important result would follow from this, he recommended publication. His intuition was right. Assume Alice dives into the black hole. For an external observer Bob, she never reaches the event horizon. This is how the things look, according to General Relativity, from Bob's point of view. In Bob's coordinates, Alice never reaches the horizon, because GR predicts it gets closer slower and slower, like in a Zeno paradox. But in Alice's reference frame, she crosses the horizon in a finite time. This apparent contradiction is due to the different coordinates used by Alice and Bob. Bob's coordinates are singular at the horizon. So he is wrong, Alice crosses the horizon in finite time, but because he is accelerating continuously to avoid falling in the black hole, there is a redshift of the light coming from Alice, so that in Bob's frame, her time stops. Moreover, because Bob sees the event horizon as being hot, he would see Alice being vaporized. This would be OK from Bob's point of view, because other wise he would experience violation of the no-cloning theorem. But this also takes place in Bob's coordinate system, which is singular at the event horizon. So, he should again be wrong. However, let's go with STU and assume that Bob is right. But the equivalence principle implies that Alice would not experience something special when she would cross the horizon. So, in fact, the information describing her would cross the event horizon. This amounts to an apparent contradiction between what Bob sees, and what Alice experiences. On the other hand, STU want that the information describing Alice remains outside the horizon. This can't be done, unless the information is cloned, one copy going with Alice, and the other remaining available to Bob in the Hawking radiation. For me, this is a proof that 1' is wrong. Admitting that 1' is true, we have to choose between no-cloning and the equivalence principle. Everybody agreed that we should not contradict these two principles. This means that the hypothesis that information survives by remaining outside the horizon, was wrong. Please note that this doesn't mean that 1 is wrong, only that 1' is wrong. 1 and 1' are not equivalent, although 1' implies 1. In other words, information may be preserved, but not as STU wanted. I think this is a great result, found by STU, but they decided to ignore it. They didn't stop here. They didn't want to give up 1', because they believed that the only way to save information is this. In other words, he believed that 1 is equivalent to 1'. Because this led them to contradiction, they decided to accept 1' together with the contradiction. The way was to admit cloning of the information so that it is shared by Alice and Bob, but to claim in the same time that this is not violation of 2. STU saw that there is a contradiction between Alice and Bob, so they decided to apply the solution from the Sufi joke with Mulla Nasrudin <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Sufism/Nasrudin#Of_any_two_options_choose_the_third>, and agree with both of them. But, unlike the dervish, they did not go beyond dualism, and proposed instead the black hole complementarity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_complementarity>. Essentially, it said that, even though Alice has a copy, and Bob has a copy, this doesn't contradict the no-cloning theorem, because Alice can't see Bob's copy, and *vice-versa*. Now, call this however you want, but to me, it's a contradiction. Susskind even claimed that in fact this is just Bohr's complementarity, applied to this new case. It is true that Bohr stretched his idea of complementarity, until he saw it everywhere, and others stretched it more <http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2024529?uid=3738920&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102711916977>. But there is no connection between Bohr's and STU's complementarity. In Bohr's complementarity, there is no contradiction. Sometimes light behaves like waves, sometimes like point particles, but this is not a contradiction. If in a particular experiment, light behaves like waves for Alice, it does the same for Bob. STU said that Alice and Bob can never meet, to compare their notes, hence there will be no proof that the no-cloning was violated. In other words, Nature can break her own laws whenever she wants, if we can't catch her in the act. But, a question was raised, what if Bob dives into the black hole, following Alice, to compare their observations? Susskind found relatively quickly an answer to this: before Bob meeting Alice, they will be destroyed by the singularity. Indeed, calculations for Schwarzschild black holes show that Susskind is right about this. But what if the black hole has the tiniest electric charge or rotation? In this case, the singularity is not spacelike, as in the Schwarzshild black hole. The singularity is timelike, and Alice and Bob can, in principle, avoid for indefinite time to reach it. So, there is plenty of time to meet and compare their notes. For some reason, this situation is never mentioned, only the Schwarzschild black hole case, for which there is an answer. There is another reason why I disagree with BHC: it *violates the equivalence principle*. I explained this already in 2011 <https://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/blackholecomplementarity.pdf>. Ironically, although BHC was invented to allow 2 coexist with 1' and 3, it actually contradicts 2. Here is why. According to the equivalence principle, an experiment involving gravity should give the same result as an experiment in which we replace gravity with acceleration. Consider for example that Alice is moving inertially (free-fall motion), and Bob's frame is accelerated. This can happen at the black hole, when Bob sees Alice crossing the event horizon, while his accelerated motion helps him avoid falling. But it can happen somewhere far from any black holes. In this case, due to his acceleration, Bob will see something similar to the event horizon - the Rindler horizon. If he will see Alice crossing the Rindler horizon, he will see her evaporating. This is the equivalent of what happens in the case of a black hole, according to the equivalence principle. There is one big difference from the case when Alice falls in a Schwarzschild black hole: if Bob goes after her, he will find her alive and in good health. He will realize that she was not destroyed when she crosses the Rindler horizon. So, the equivalence principle tells us that even though Bob sees Alice being destroyed near the event horizon, he is again wrong, as it was in the case of the Rindler horizon. Hence, we have to choose between BHC and the equivalence principle. Last year (in 2012), Almheiri, Marolf, Polchinski, and Sully (AMPS) wrote the paper Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls? <http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3123>, in which they show, by a different argument, that BHC doesn't solve the problem. They propose instead that Alice is actually destroyed at the horizon, by a firewall (formerly considered by Susskind, who called it "brick wall"). The price paid is that this sacrifices the equivalence principle. So, if AMPS are right, and the solution is to admit the firewall, then why should we keep BHC? It is sometimes answered that BHC is still needed, to explain why Bob sees Alice never crossing the horizon, while she actually crosses her, in a finite proper time. But, as I explained, this is just an effect of GR, due to the fact that Bob's coordinates are singular at the horizon. All the discussions taking place within the last year around black hole complementarity and firewall are concentrated near the event horizon. Information is supposed to be destroyed by the singularity, but it is hoped that, somehow, the event horizon plays the major role in recovering it. Black hole complementarity is based on the idea that Nature makes a backup of the information on the stretched horizon. The firewall proposal suggests that the event horizon is a shield that burns whatever may fall in the black hole, in order to make the information immortal. To me, these are a Deus ex machina <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina> kind of explanations; it appears as if the supporters of these ideas see a purpose in the universe, and that purpose is eternal life for the information falling into the black hole, at any costs. It looks like God found a problem after he patched together General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, and decided to fix it somehow. For instance, if God was a programmer, he would make a backup of the information on the horizon, to fix the memory leak caused by the singularities. Or, if God was a plumber, he would connect a pipe at the event horizon, to deviate information and prevent it leaking through the singularity. Fixing a bug, or a leak, would reveal intention in creating the universe, a watchmaker who made an imperfect work and then repaired it using an improvisation. Most part of this post I explained why I don't buy BHC. I also said that, during the process, STU found that 1' contradict 2 and 3, and that I consider this the correct result, and the attempt to remove the contradiction by embracing and giving it a name, did not actually remove it. So, my main point was to explain that in fact to save the lost information, copying it at the horizon is not the solution. I also don't think it is a solution to break the principle of equivalence, by building a firewall in a place where GR and QFT work well. In fact, as I will explain in a future post, I think that all this endeavor was misguided: why search the lost information in another place than that where was lost? Giving up this assumption will reveal that there is no contradiction between 1, 2, and 3 on the event horizon, without having to invoke mystical principles like *no contradiction is a contradiction, until it is an observed contradiction*. We will see this in the next post, named Look for the information where you lost it <http://www.unitaryflow.com/2013/10/black-hole-paradox-3-look-for-the-information-where-you-lost-it.html> . On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/science/space/a-black-hole-mystery-wrapped-in-a-firewall-paradox.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 > > A Black Hole Mystery Wrapped in a Firewall Paradox > > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:11 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: >> >> John, >> >> You make a good point that the guy approaching the black hole would see >> everything located outside of its gravitational influence as being sped up >> immensely. Also, it makes sense that he would be fried by the incoming >> radiation from the orbiting sun if he is moving at a moderate velocity >> compared to the speed of light. >> >> It is not quite as clear about what will occur if the guy takes a path >> directly toward the black hole in his ship since it would accelerate very >> rapidly as it gains energy from the field. A form of race condition might >> exist as he speeds up along with the incoming light chasing him. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Thu, Dec 18, 2014 7:12 pm >> Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:OT : $55 oil freaking out stock market >> >> Some of that went over my head, at least with a single reading. >> >> But the Pound-Rebka experiment shows that such red and blue shifting >> from light entering and leaving a gravitationally time dilated area does >> occur, this means that any object that began to fall into a black hole >> would not only see the outside universe speed up, but it would see the >> frequencies and energies increase also. >> And the same would by default occur if the time accelerating field acted >> on everything in the area (which I think you are suggesting isn't the case). >> >> If you fell into a black hole that was orbiting a sun, you would see >> the light output of the sun grow and grow as the frequency spectrum of the >> light would also be shifted, you would encounter for instance 10,000 years >> of light in 1 hour and frequencies would be stepped up by the same amount, >> which is to say frequencies would have a multiplier of 86,400,000 >> (10,000*365*24)! >> >> An object falling into an intense gravity field such as a black hole >> would surely explode and become radioactive under such insanely intense >> bombardment. >> >> Indeed this would possibly lead to the creation of all sorts of exotic >> particles as collisions would involve so much energy as to be out of this >> world. >> >> If you are proposing a form of time dilation that only effects the gas, >> then we must still consider the radioactive decay the gas undergoes, it >> must be effected also just as the atom that released it was. >> >> John >> >> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 1:13 AM, Roarty, Francis X < >> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: >>> >>> John, most of the “time” dilation would be accompanied by Lorentzian >>> dilation of equally large magnitude [contraction is indicative of spatial >>> displacement on what remains the “time” axis from our perspective]– just as >>> a “deep enough gravity well” can create relativistic effects for objects at >>> the bottom, I am saying a time dilation reactor would create a “tall enough >>> gravity hill” to generate time dilations in the opposite direction wrt a >>> black hole but both are based on equivalent acceleration [positive vs >>> negative]. IMHO the spectrum shifted black light that Mills named his >>> company after is somehow related to time dilation of plasma inside the >>> skeletal catalyst Rayney nickel. So far time dilation has only been noticed >>> occasionally wrt radioactive gas but IMHO all the hydrogen being >>> fractionalized by the powder is actually being aged rapidly and it is the >>> difference in these aging profiles that we call dynamic Casimir effect >>> [DCE]. it simply awaits for these “passive” effects to become more robust >>> [Shawyer’s device?] for the relativistic effects to jump out at us. >>> >>> I also have a suspicion that nature has a built in shield with respect >>> to light and dilation – the fact that measured dilation of a laser between >>> Casimir plates has always been at trivial levels while measureable levels >>> of dilation occur to radioactive gases makes me think the random motion of >>> gas is needed to “make the turn” made available by Casimir effect such that >>> gas can “turn” further and further onto a temporal become spatial vector >>> which allows Casimir effect to compound while the laser beam is locked into >>> a trajectory straight across the mouth never able to dive down into the bay. >>> Fran >>> >>> *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:29 PM >>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:OT : $55 oil freaking out stock market >>> >>> You are going to also need some amazing shields to deal with 10,000 >>> years of radioactive decay in just an hour. >>> >>> Actually many problems exist if we assume an accelerated passage of >>> time were possible, as the frequency of all radiation would be upshifted in >>> frequency by the same amount! >>> >>> So you might just destroy the planet if you create 10,000 years worth >>> of gamma radiation that now has an extremely upshifted frequency and energy >>> And what about the particle decay which is now moving with such an energy? >>> >>> That's a bit problematical. >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:24 AM, Roarty, Francis X < >>> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: >>> Jed, >>> I do have a more imaginative solution for radioactive >>> waste, cycle it through a reactor that ages it 10,000 years relative to one >>> hour outside the reactor.. I think this sort of time dilation is going to >>> become a side effect of LENR that can be optimized. It occurs already >>> according to claims of anomalous decay in radioactive gases but such claims >>> are a passive effect of catalyst nano geometry, IMHO the claims by Shawyer >>> are more interesting, if correct and optimized it represents an active >>> system where we can combine microwave energy with macro scale geometry to >>> dilate larger regions..I suspect this is why Shawyer is presenting his >>> technology as being “relativistic” in nature. He is unbalancing the spatial >>> and temporal phase inside his trapezoid with standing waves relative to >>> outside his device such that any linked forces between these inertial >>> frames can transpose time for space and unbalance the equal and opposite >>> action – reactions. He is focused on thrust but at a root level he is >>> pushing or pulling between two slightly different phases of space-time to >>> create motion. This still all hangs precariously on the Naudts theory where >>> hydrogen ATOMS loaded into a catalyst sitting on a lab bench can be >>> considered relativistic – without near C spatial displacement – supposition >>> being that the region the atom travels thru is warped/negative gravity >>> well/depleted of virtual particle density just the opposite of the density >>> approaching C or sitting at the bottom of a large gravity well like a black >>> hole. >>> Fran >>> >>> >>> *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 16, 2014 4:40 PM >>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:OT : $55 oil freaking out stock market >>> >>> Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> $55 oil freaking out stock market, So is it really Saudi controlled to >>> bankrupt shale investors or is there some possible relationship to LENR? >>> >>> >>> I do not think that cold fusion has played any role in this. It is >>> caused by fracking in the United States which has lowered the cost and >>> increased supplies of both oil and natural gas. >>> >>> The moment it becomes generally known that cold fusion is real and >>> that it is likely to be commercialized, the price of oil will fall to $10 a >>> barrel. That is approximately what it costs in Saudi Arabia, I believe. It >>> will never rise again. >>> >>> Eventually oil will fall to zero dollars per barrel, and then negative >>> $10 per barrel, when it is synthesized from garbage. That is to say, people >>> will pay you to take their garbage and others will pay you a little for the >>> oil, which will still be needed for plastic feedstock, lubrication and a >>> few other purposes. >>> >>> I hope that eventually people will synthesize teratons of oil from >>> CO2, and pump it back underground, where it belongs. This will reduce the >>> carbon concentration in the atmosphere and prevent global warming. We could >>> pump it underground or ship it off-Earth via a space elevator. If people on >>> Mars have no use for it we can dump it into the sun I suppose. That is what >>> we should do with all of the fission rad-waste left from today's nuclear >>> reactors. The notion that we have to bury that stuff underground here on >>> earth and protect it for the next 10,000 years strikes me as unimaginative. >>> It is silly. This is a problem we should leave to our great-grandchildren >>> to fix. They will be able to do it more easily than we can. It will be a >>> minor expense for them. Some problems are best left for posterity to fix. >>> >>> - Jed >>> >>> >>
