31–40 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a convincing argument. We may not have data, but as in other problems in physics we may have indirect ways to get evidence. These indirect ways may not be apparent nowadays, but may become in the future.
Sure, but until such a time, the problem will remain unsolvable.
For me, this was the money quote: > The black hole information loss problem is not a math problem. It’s not like trying to prove the Riemann hypothesis. You cannot solve the black hole information loss problem with math alone. You need data, there is no data, and there won’t be any data. Which is why the black hole information loss problem is for all practical purposes unsolvable. We lack experimental data. We lack a…
It leaves me wondering, is that data fundamentally impossible to collect, or do we just not know how yet? Sure, maybe the problem is unsolvable by math alone but that doesn't make it mathematically unsolvable. Maybe we could build or capture a black hole in the lab, put detectors all around it, and watch it evaporate, or something.
Some theorize that evaporating micro black holes could/should be an observable effect of the Large Hadron Collider. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note, however, her comment: > This is why the headline that the black hole information loss problem is “coming to an end” is ridiculous. Though, let me mention that I know the author of the piece, George Musser, and he’s a decent guy and, the way this often goes, he didn’t choose the title. She's against where the popular media wants to go with the article, and against the headline, but not so much against the articl…
I think she also believes that, since the problem is not even close to being testable at this time at least, it is not really worth studying to the current extent - any theories about it would only remain mathematical constructs, not physical theories.
> In my opinion, the black hole information loss problem is the most overhyped problem in all of science, and I say that as someone who has published several papers about it.
So I'm not sure that she thinks it isn't worth studying. I think she thinks it isn't valid to declare that something "solves" it, though.
> And without data, the question is not which solution to the problem is correct, but which one you like best. I think this is correct to some extent, ultimately unavoidable, and some assumptions can be "inferred" as more reasonable than others, even in the absence of falsification. By Sabine's stance, the problem of induction [0] hasn't been "solved" because we actually have no reason to assume that past events are…
I'm confused, isn't the whole schtick around past events being related to future events the basis of causality?
> And without data, the question is not which solution to the problem is correct, but which one you like best. I think this is correct to some extent, ultimately unavoidable, and some assumptions can be "inferred" as more reasonable than others, even in the absence of falsification. By Sabine's stance, the problem of induction [0] hasn't been "solved" because we actually have no reason to assume that past events are…
I'm confused, isn't the whole schtick around past events being related to future events the basis of causality?
Until someone can prove the universe cares whether the info is in a black hole or not, its not really a problem is it? If anything the universe usually shows it doesn't care what we humans think, its going to do its own thing, regardless: i.e., weak nuclear force and "symmetries"
I still don't understand what they mean by "loss". Why is this even a problem? The information isn't gone, its right -there- in the black hole, which until proven otherwise, is part of the universe. Until someone can prove the universe cares whether the info is in a black hole or not, its not really a problem is it? If anything the universe usually shows it doesn't care what we humans think, its going to do its own t…