Talk:Black hole information paradox

homogeneity and BHIP

I removed the following paragraph which was recently added;

The homogeneity of space and the space-time position independence of the laws of physics is a fundamental assumption of all physics science since Newton. Recenlty, because of the dead end of the Scientific method, scientists like Hawking concluded that the laws of physics are not actually space-time position independant but space-time position bounded, thats why they created the black holes concept and claimed that space or time is absent inside them. The information paradox of black holes is, for some anti-scientists philosophers, the proof that space is not homogeneous and/or that the laws of physics are actually space-time position dependant and not space-time position bounded, as long as, according to the paradox, information seems to vanish or (alternatively) stored to unconventional material (or non-material) objects. Apart from the black hole information paradox, some experiments came also close to the philosophy of the position dependancy of the laws of physics. Some universal constants used in well known equations have been found to change their values (increase or decrease) when measured in small fragments of time or when time passing [1]. A group of pioneer "scientists", lead by John K. Webb [2], continues the experiments in this revolutionary field.

This mostly reads like pseudoscience. The invariance of fundamental physical constants with space and/or time is open to question, and John K. Webb and other's cited may well work on this. However I can't see any connection or relevance to the Black Hole Information Paradox. -- Solipsist 09:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

assumed tenet of science?

I read with astonishment -in several media in connection with this paradox- that a commonly assumed tenet of science is that information cannot be destroyed. I am a physics graduate, never heard of it and it seems to be in contradiction with the second principle of thermodynamics and the foreseen cold and hot deaths of the universe. Worse I cannot find in the whole web anything about this "assumed tenet of science". I think someone should explain it.

Manuel Navarro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.154.136 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 8 February 2007

Controversies

AchaksurvisayaUdvejin added a "Controversies" section with the edit summary:

added conroversy section as per talk page

I have reverted the addition because:

1. there was no prior discussion on this talk page about a "Controversies" section; and
2. the section appears to be an argument against the existence of black holes at all, which, given the mainstream view on black holes, would be a fringe theory at best, and an original synthesis of ideas from the available sources at worst.

Further, the addition appears to be a further effort to push the ideas of Abhas Mitra to the forefront. (I note that Editor1729 and AchaksurvisayaUdvejin are not unacquainted (see [3]), so it is possible that they are working together to further Mitra's views.) In any case, such a controversies section does need discussion, and, if this information belongs at Wikipedia at all, it belongs at the main black hole article. The deleted material is included in the collapse box below for review.

Deleted "Controversies" section

Controversies Robert Oppenheimer and his student Hartland Synder published a paper entitles "On Continued Gravitational Contraction" in Physical Review which, it is believed, that showed for the first time that continued GR Collapse should lead to formation of Black Holes. John Baez & Chris HIllman humiliated Einstein because Einstein claimed that black holes can't form.. Einstein concluded on his paper," The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarschild singularities don't exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it doesn't seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that mote general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild Singularity" doesn't appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." References

Solutions

The article currently provides a miscellaneous list of solutions. All of these are backed up by references so I do not propose deleting any of them. Nevertheless, it is not the case that these solutions are viewed equally by researchers.

(A) Within, what might broadly be termed the "string theory community", the dominant idea is that Hawking's computation is corrected by small corrections. This may imprecisely be termed "leaks out gradually" but there are really several forms of the "small corrections argument". For example (1) information is released according to the Page curve; the black hole interior retains its semi-classical form but information enters Hawking radiation through a loss of locality. (2) information is always outside and due to a loss of factorization and once again this is a consequence of a loss of locality (3) the black hole interior is converted into a fuzzball so that information is released as it would be in a piece of coal but the interior geometry is significantly modified.

(B) Within, what might broadly be called the "loop quantum gravity community", the dominant idea is that of the remnant scenario. There are currently several versions of the remnant scenario provided in the list of solutions and I propose combining them into a single heading.

(C) There are some researchers who believe that unitarity is lost. There are others (eg. R. Wald) who point out that evolution from a pure to a mixed state is possible even within QFT.

(D) Then there are baby universe scenarios and also the final state proposals.

So I propose reorganizing this section according to the subheadings above. This will involve the addition of material and some reorganization of text.

Jacob2718 (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be a solution involved pairs of particles/antiparticles being ripped apart at the horizon of the BH, giving every information a signature. 2A02:8440:620F:143D:0:30:1AF7:D001 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: There seems to be a word or words missing in this section under "Other proposed resolutions". The first sentence under the 3rd bullet point reads as follows:

"The final-state proposal suggests that boundary conditions must be imposed at the black-hole singularity which, from a causal perspective, is to the future of all events in the black-hole interior." Hazratio (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

"Gauss law"

I feel like the appearance of "Gauss law" should have a wiki-link to explicate it, but I'm not sure we have an article which covers quite what the authors of that paper have in mind (the relationship between the total energy on a Cauchy slice and the integral of an appropriate component of the asymptotic metric). Gauss's law for gravity only covers Newtonian gravity, no Cauchy surfaces in sight. Thoughts? XOR'easter (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point. I think what we want should, in principle, be covered by Mass_in_general_relativity except that the article there does not appear to be in good shape. At the moment, it does not even have the formula for the ADM energy, let alone the relationship to the Newtonian Gauss law. This is surprising for an article covering a concept that is so important in general relativity. Maybe this is a call to try and fix that article! I will try and do that although it might take a few days. Jacob2718 (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I made some progress in improving the article on Mass in general relativity. There is still more work that needs to be done on that article. But now it at least mentions the Gauss law and its use in defining asymptotic energy in general relativity. Jacob2718 (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Information cannot be destroyed?

Tell that to the Great Library of Alexandria.84.54.70.206 (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)