Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

backreaction.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 143 posts

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#111

Post by mikeappell »

phkahler wrote: post #93
wwarner wrote: post #71

Her frustration with the priorities of theoretical physics probably is justified, but in this case I disagree with @skdh. Her claim is that any solution for the BHIP cannot be falsified, and that strikes me as too pessimistic for two reasons. First, look at the results of pushing the theory harder with respect to spinning black holes. Many predictions of Kerr's theory have been observed, even if the ring singularity…

>> Her claim is that any solution for the BHIP cannot be falsified, and that strikes me as too pessimistic for two reasons. No. She said there isn't any data. I know the word falsify has become prominent in the last 15 years or so, but a "theory" that doesn't agree with some real world data is just a hypothesis. In other words a theory needs confirmation in addition to not being falsified. This is where the divide sh…

> until there is confirming evidence that assertion is just mental self-gratification.

I'd say this is a bit overly negative. There's value in developing theories and frameworks which aren't yet provable but should be as soon as technology or other theoretical frameworks catch up.

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#112

Post by edgyquant »

mikeappell wrote: post #111
phkahler wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Her claim is that any solution for the BHIP cannot be falsified, and that strikes me as too pessimistic for two reasons. No. She said there isn't any data. I know the word falsify has become prominent in the last 15 years or so, but a "theory" that doesn't agree with some real world data is just a hypothesis. In other words a theory needs confirmation in addition to not being falsified. This is where the divide sh…

> until there is confirming evidence that assertion is just mental self-gratification. I'd say this is a bit overly negative. There's value in developing theories and frameworks which aren't yet provable but should be as soon as technology or other theoretical frameworks catch up.

But those, by definition, are not theories they are hypothesis.

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#113

Post by lokedhs »

mr_toad wrote: post #110
pdonis wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By Sabine's stance, the problem of induction [0] hasn't been "solved" The "problem" of induction is a different kind of problem from the black hole information loss problem. Induction can't be tested against experimental data. Induction isn't a testable hypothesis; it's a strategy we have no choice but to adopt if we want to plan for the future at all. So there is no "problem" of induction at all: it's just somethi…

Isn’t the information loss problem hypothetical in the first place? I doubt anyone has seriously tried to observe information coming out of a black hole.

I'm not a physicist so if I got anything wrong, please correct me.

The problem is that information conservation is a fundamental part of quantum mechanics. QM is a hugely successful theory which has proven itself to be accurate to absolutely incredible precision.

The black hole information paradox implies that there is no way for information to escape the black hole, breaking conservation of information.

The implications of this is huge: Either information can escape a black hole, which suggests general relativity is wrong. Or information cannot escape a black hole, in which case QM is wrong.

So the key to coming up with a solution to this problem is to explain what happens without breaking physics. One suggestion have been that the information actually never enters the black hole in the first place, it's just spread out over the surface of the event horizon.

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#114

Post by mannykannot »

whatshisface wrote: post #108
pdonis wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have to rely on some sort of proxy for the simplicity or elegance of the theory in order to preclude hypotheses like the above. No, we don't. The rule that precludes your hypothesis is much simpler: the laws of physics don't change with time. That doesn't require the laws of physics to be "simple" or "elegant", and doesn't require anyone's subjective judgment about which laws of physics they think are more beaut…

> The rule that precludes your hypothesis is much simpler: the laws of physics don't change with time Why should we believe this rule?

You can believe what you like - science is not concerned with persuading every skeptic.

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#115

Post by lokedhs »

seppel wrote: post #61
gizmo686 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The black hole is not eternal. Once it is fully evaporated, you still need to account for the information that was contained within (or accept information loss).

> Once it is fully evaporated, you still need to account for the information that was contained within (or accept information loss). One way to escape this is: * You accept that the Hawkin radiation contains the original information. * But it is scrambled in a reversible way, but so hard that you cannot reverse it with the energie available in the universe. There are nice talk by Scott Aaronson about this, e.g.: http…

But Hawking radiation is black-body radiation. Isn't it just photons where its frequency is proportional to the black hole mass?

Where would the information be encoded?

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#116

Post by whimsicalism »

mannykannot wrote: post #114
whatshisface wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The rule that precludes your hypothesis is much simpler: the laws of physics don't change with time Why should we believe this rule?

You can believe what you like - science is not concerned with persuading every skeptic.

The point isn't skepticism of science, it's the recognition that something akin to Occam's Razor has to be used in theory, as there will always be an infinite number of unfalsifiable theories for any set of observations.

In this context, Sabine is the skeptic of theory writ large.

So many replies taking my argument to be the exact opposite of what it is.

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#117

Post by mannykannot »

whimsicalism wrote: post #78
pdonis wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By Sabine's stance, the problem of induction [0] hasn't been "solved" The "problem" of induction is a different kind of problem from the black hole information loss problem. Induction can't be tested against experimental data. Induction isn't a testable hypothesis; it's a strategy we have no choice but to adopt if we want to plan for the future at all. So there is no "problem" of induction at all: it's just somethi…

My point is that there are always going to be equally possible alternative theories which make any problem "unsolvable". I could make a theory that says that gravity works exactly as we think it does, except in about 1000 years will cease to function entirely - and that theory would be equally consistent with observation. I would be equally correct in saying that we do not yet posses the technology (time travel) to f…

> I could make a theory that says that gravity works exactly as we think it does, except in about 1000 years will cease to function entirely.

I suppose you could - but this vacuous armchair theorizing, which, I hope, took you less than a minute to dream up, has no bearing on scientific theories of gravity, which are based on what has been observed. This does not depend on any concept of 'simplicity' or 'elegance', but, at most, on Occam's razor (which is not, as Wikipedia claims, a matter of "the simplest explanation is usually the right one": it is a matter of eliminating premises that are not explaining anything beyond what can already be explained.)

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#118

Post by whimsicalism »

mannykannot wrote: post #117
whimsicalism wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that there are always going to be equally possible alternative theories which make any problem "unsolvable". I could make a theory that says that gravity works exactly as we think it does, except in about 1000 years will cease to function entirely - and that theory would be equally consistent with observation. I would be equally correct in saying that we do not yet posses the technology (time travel) to f…

> I could make a theory that says that gravity works exactly as we think it does, except in about 1000 years will cease to function entirely. I suppose you could - but this vacuous armchair theorizing, which, I hope, took you less than a minute to dream up, has no bearing on scientific theories of gravity, which are based on what has been observed. This does not depend on any concept of 'simplicity' or 'elegance', bu…

Oh yeah, Occam's razor has nothing to do with any concept of "simplicity". /s

You're literally stumbling into my conclusion and then arguing that it is different from what I was saying. You can even look at my other replies to you referencing Occam's Razor as exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#119

Post by mannykannot »

whimsicalism wrote: post #118
mannykannot wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could make a theory that says that gravity works exactly as we think it does, except in about 1000 years will cease to function entirely. I suppose you could - but this vacuous armchair theorizing, which, I hope, took you less than a minute to dream up, has no bearing on scientific theories of gravity, which are based on what has been observed. This does not depend on any concept of 'simplicity' or 'elegance', bu…

Oh yeah, Occam's razor has nothing to do with any concept of "simplicity". /s You're literally stumbling into my conclusion and then arguing that it is different from what I was saying. You can even look at my other replies to you referencing Occam's Razor as exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Your sarcasm reflects back on you, as explained by my concurrent edit to my point, which I will repeat here: Occam's razor is not, as Wikipedia claims, a matter of "the simplest explanation is usually the right one": it is a matter of eliminating premises that are not explaining anything beyond what can already be explained. Your armchair "hypothesis" that, in about 1000 years, gravity will cease to function entirely, is not something that needs to be explained.

Re: The Black Hole information loss problem is unsolvable

#120

Post by whimsicalism »

mannykannot wrote: post #119
whimsicalism wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah, Occam's razor has nothing to do with any concept of "simplicity". /s You're literally stumbling into my conclusion and then arguing that it is different from what I was saying. You can even look at my other replies to you referencing Occam's Razor as exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Your sarcasm reflects back on you, as explained by my concurrent edit to my point, which I will repeat here: Occam's razor is not, as Wikipedia claims, a matter of "the simplest explanation is usually the right one": it is a matter of eliminating premises that are not explaining anything beyond what can already be explained. Your armchair "hypothesis" that, in about 1000 years, gravity will cease to function entirely…

Rather than delving into whether additional assumptions is related to the complexity of a theory, which I think is a largely pedantic debate, I think we don't disagree as much as you perceive.

> not something that needs to be explained

I agree, and I'm saying that Sabine is discounting the same tool that you used to reject my hypothesis. That is my point. If there is an explanation for BHIP that does not introduce any new assumptions or very small assumptions to existing theory, that lends it credence even in the absence of direct observations of black holes, just as we lack direct observation of gravity 1000 years from now.

Post reply on HN