Is information ever actually lost in a black hole?

[paddoboy]

If you're not really interested in getting the corrected post on the matter in question, then why engage me at all in the first place? And why bother posting all that well known gumph instead of addressing the points raised in by me in defense of my opinion and understandings of the issue of information and the LHC collisions analysis and so on.

The correct information is that which is in the link. Please read and learn.
And I'm posting info, not answering your questionable opinionated claims.
It appears its you not wanting to recognise professional opinions when they perhaps invalidate your own that appears to be the problem.

Unless your wall of text actually addresses and corrects the actual points raised by me in my post, your posting that wall of text is pure waste of everybody's time. If you are not going to defend your own claims other than by posting cut and pasted walls of text from outside sources, then I would appreciate it if you did not engage me in future unless you have a defense of your own claims and criticisms with your own details and not imported walls of text which may or may not be to the points raised that you need to address specifically not nebulously with beside the point verbiage harvested blindly from someone else. Thanks.

I'll post whatever reputable cut n pastes I chose that supports the mainstream accepted position.That is part and parcel of this forum. Live with it.
And they give the true perspective of collision energies.

 

[paddoboy]

http://tevnphwg.fnal.gov/results/SM_Higgs_Summer_12/

Tevatron New Phenomena & Higgs Working Group



Updated Combination of CDF and DØ's Searches for Standard Model Higgs Boson Production with up to 10.0 fb-1 of Data
June 2012
Preliminary Results
95% C.L. exclusion for SM Higgs with mass mH between 147 and 180 GeV/c2, and between 100 and 103 GeV/c2.
An excess with a significance of 2.5σ is seen that might be interpreted as coming from a Higgs boson with a mass in the region of 115 to 135 GeV. An excess with a significance of 2.9σ is seen in the combination of CDF and DØ's H→bb channels.

The results of combinations of searches for H→bb, H→W+W-, and H→γγ are shown as well.

Documentation: arXiv:1207.0449 [hep-ex]

more at link.......

 

[expletives deleted]

The correct information is that which is in the link. Please read and learn.
And I'm posting info, not answering your questionable opinionated claims.
It appears its you not wanting to recognise professional opinions when they perhaps invalidate your own that appears to be the problem.


I'll post whatever reputable cut n pastes I chose that supports the mainstream accepted position.That is part and parcel of this forum. Live with it.

How do you know what is correct or not if you aren't interested enough to actually go to the points raised and then see if what you linked to addresses those actual points and not just provide some generic blurb which doesn't even address the issue we are discussing? Why do you then demand people answer your personal questions while you beg off answering on-topic science questions raised by my opinion and understandings posted in relation to the OP? Professional opinions may or may not be correct. Science advances by finding those incorrect opinions and correcting them. I have yet to see you produce any professional opinions that specifically go to the issues raised between us, let alone invalidate them. In any case I am ready for some learned member to do what you have failed to do despite all your walls of text and begging off answering legitimate science on-topic questions which arise when you challenged and criticized and blustered without being interested enough to bother checking my post after an edit so as to get things straight before you proceed. You may support mainstream all you like, just don't post any more walls of text at me instead of addressing the scientific issues which arose between us because you challenged me, not the other way round. Please, if you are not going to behave scholarly or gentlemanly and with proper respect and preparedness to argue your own case in return, then please in future do not engage me. Thanks.

 

[James R]

expletives deleted:

Isn't Information an abstract concept strictly for application in computational and mathematical systems of logics and design of information processing methods and techniques?

Information is an abstract concept. But then, so is energy. Energy is a useful abstract quantity in physics precisely because it is often conserved. This thread is about whether information is also a conserved quantity when it comes to black holes.

My argument in support, based on my own understandings only: In LHC, the inputs are amorphous magnetic energies which, when combined with the kinetic energies of the accelerated particles at point of collision, become even more amorphous to the point of producing a dissociated soup of energy quantity which immediately jets out and expands in various turbulent and incoherent perturbations which eventually reform randomly to various products which may or may not reproduce exactly the forms of energy and particles input to that collision.

I'm not sure what "amorphous magnetic energies" you're referring to. The LHC collides beams of protons.

Particles can only interact and decay in particular ways according to the Standard Model of Particle Physics. It is certainly not the case that the processes taking place in the LHC are entirely random. There are, of course, many different possible products from a high-energy proton-proton collision. The detectors at the LHC are there to detect as many of those products as possible. Once the products of a particular collision are known, the collision event itself can be reconstructed using what we know about particle physics.

I'm not sure what your point is about the products not reproducing the "forms of energy and particles input to collision". Energy is conserved in LHC collisions. The inputs are usually just fast protons. The processes are reconstructed from the information collected by those rather large detectors they have there.

The experimenters cannot in my opinion know exactly the total amount of energies going into a collisions, so no proper information content could be inferred even if we wanted to.

The input energies are known very precisely. The LHC is as large as it is and as expensive as it is precisely because physicists wanted it to be able to accelerate protons to a very specific energy level.

Then the totality of particle zoo and free energy forms which exit will have different information from what went into the collision.

I'm not sure how you're defining or measuring "information" here. Perhaps you can explain.

And in relation to black holes, are you familiar with how "information" is defined and calculated there?

On the OP issue: I can only say that the issue is not a physical one but a philosophical one...

No. It's a physics problem. As I understand it, information, rigorously defined, seems to be conserved in physical processes. If it isn't conserved in black holes then we have a physics problem to solve. Famously, Stephen Hawking has spent many years worrying about this issue.

 

[Bruinthor]

sorry I didn't post this first but I wanted to be careful about what I say and how.

The Schwarzschild metric allows a model of two time like geodesics and connecting null geodesics that can be almost algebraically resolved. Unfortunately there are elliptic functions involved in such a way that there is no simple algebraic expression for departure vs. return time as measured locally by the observer. There is an additional complication in that there are infinitely many null geodesics connecting any point on one time like geodesics to the other world line.
Assume a Schwarzschild metric.
Assume an observer in a circular orbit with a r much greater than 3/2 the Schwarzschild radius.
Assume also a test particle falling radially perpendicular to the orbit of the observer.
Assume the observer knows enough about the test particle and the metric to aim a photon that will achieve the shortest possible round trip time.
Assume the test particle reflects the photon in the right direction to maintain the observers intent.
Assume the data collection begins while the test particle r is much greater than 3/2 the Schwarzschild radius.
The data will show the round trip time initially decreasing and the photon blue shifted. At some time the round trip time will begin to increase and the photon will be red shifted (I am not sure of the order of these changes in the general case). The fall of the test particle will appear to slow as it approaches 3/2 the Schwarzschild radius, the round trip time and red shift will go to infinity.
There will be a last returned photon emitted at some finite time even if the data collection continues into eternity.
The test particle will fall to r equals 0 in finite time (as measured locally).

 

[paddoboy]

How do you know what is correct or not if you aren't interested enough to actually go to the points raised and then see if what you linked to addresses those actual points and not just provide some generic blurb which doesn't even address the issue we are discussing?

I have given you a number of links, all reputable. I find that as far superior to a layman's opinion such as yours.

Why do you then demand people answer your personal questions while you beg off answering on-topic science questions raised by my opinion and understandings posted in relation to the OP? Professional opinions may or may not be correct.

Professional opinions may change as new observations etc come to light, just as scientific theories may change, be modified or scrapped.
That will not, and does not happen on a science forum open to any Tom, Dick, or Harry.

Science advances by finding those incorrect opinions and correcting them.

I don't need to be told how science advances from a rank amateur as against professional opinions that I have linked for you.

I have yet to see you produce any professional opinions that specifically go to the issues raised between us, let alone invalidate them.

Them you have not looked properly or have an agenda.

Please, if you are not going to behave scholarly or gentlemanly and with proper respect and preparedness to argue your own case in return, then please in future do not engage me. Thanks.

I actually see it as you spitting the dummy so to speak, due to expert opinions invalidating your personal unsupported views. Admitting to the superiority of professional opinion, as opposed to amateurish lay person's opinions, is being scholarly and gentlemanly and honest and humble: Denying that is being silly and haughty.
And again, for the second time, my posts at 31, 34, 36, 39 and 42 were expert reputable links and was not engaging you. In fact the opposite is true and you engaged me on those reputable links. Is this an example of intellectual dishonesty?
And obviously both articles are reputable and certainly add knowledge, correctness and factualism to what is being discussed.

 

[paddoboy]

Here's a paper by Professor Stephen Hawking himself........
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.01147v1.pdf

The Information Paradox for Black Holes.

ABSTRACT
I propose that the information loss paradox can be resolved by considering the super translation of the horizon caused by the ingoing particles. Information can be recovered in principle, but it is lost for all practical purposes.

extract:
Classically, a black hole is independent of its past history. I shall assume this is also true in the quantum domain. How then can a black hole emit the information about the particles that fell in? The answer I propose, as explained above, is that the information is stored in a supertranslation associated with the shift of the horizon that the ingoing particles caused.

The supertranslations form a hologram of the ingoing particles. The varying shifts along each generator of the horizon leave an imprint on the outgoing particles in a chaotic but deterministic manner. There is no loss of information. Note that although the discussion in this paper focuses on the asymptotically flat case, this proposal also works for black holes on arbitrary backgrounds, e.g., in the presence of a nonzero cosmological constant.

 

[brucep]

In your opinion?? So, why should your opinion be listened to over recognised professional experts who actually work on the fantastic piece of machinery?

Here's a paper by Professor Stephen Hawking himself........
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.01147v1.pdf

The Information Paradox for Black Holes.

ABSTRACT
I propose that the information loss paradox can be resolved by considering the super translation of the horizon caused by the ingoing particles. Information can be recovered in principle, but it is lost for all practical purposes.

extract:
Classically, a black hole is independent of its past history. I shall assume this is also true in the quantum domain. How then can a black hole emit the information about the particles that fell in? The answer I propose, as explained above, is that the information is stored in a supertranslation associated with the shift of the horizon that the ingoing particles caused.

The supertranslations form a hologram of the ingoing particles. The varying shifts along each generator of the horizon leave an imprint on the outgoing particles in a chaotic but deterministic manner. There is no loss of information. Note that although the discussion in this paper focuses on the asymptotically flat case, this proposal also works for black holes on arbitrary backgrounds, e.g., in the presence of a nonzero cosmological constant.

This is the final paper he promised.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00921
The following is a new paper, January 2016, submitted by t'Hooft. This should be fun reading. It was in the Hawking paper cite base.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.03447

 

[The God]

And in relation to black holes, are you familiar with how "information" is defined and calculated there?

No. It's a physics problem. As I understand it, information, rigorously defined, seems to be conserved in physical processes. If it isn't conserved in black holes then we have a physics problem to solve. Famously, Stephen Hawking has spent many years worrying about this issue.

That was your post in response to "Expletives Deleted".

You did not offer any definition of 'information' as being used in information paradox, while maintaining (with a rider like 'seems to be') that it is conserved.

There is a lot of confusion about this infomation as used in information paradox. It is more to do with QM then the classical meaning of the term. It deals with the state of a system (wave equation) and if the same is known at any given time then it must be known on any past time as well as ony future time, suggesting some kind of conservation. But it is not the same as conservation of energy or mass.

I offer few ridiculously simple resolutions, pick any one.....

Resolution #1
Information as such is associated (embedded) with mass or energy (some system), if the mass/energy is conserved wrt to BH, then surely infomation is also conserved. It may have taken a non decipheravle state, but nonetheles it is not lost.

Resolution #2
This is damn interesting, kind of paying back. If Spin, Gravity and charge of a BH can remain and can be associated with field outside Event Horizon, and can remain conserved, then in the same analogy information also remains with the field outside EH, somekind of 'information sphere' along with Ergosphere. Information is safe not lost. Infact it can come out via penrose process of spinloss.

Resolution #3
This one is kinda leave it the way GR leaves it. No one knows how mass bends/warps/curves the spacetime, but there has to be a causal mechanism (not knowing does not mean non-existence). A BH demonstrates gravity outside Event Horizon, causes stars to orbit around it. There got to be some mechanism, so we can safely say that there exists a mechanism, a process, associated with gravity which transmits the information to outside world.

Resolution #4
Lets choose one, conservation of information or THE BLACK HOLE. I will dump the BH.


Why Hawking Resolutions of information paradox through HR is bad ? Why this hologram business is bad ? Why this two hemisphere concept of Hooft is bad ?

 

[paddoboy]

Why Hawking Resolutions of information paradox through HR is bad ? Why this hologram business is bad ? Why this two hemisphere concept is bad ?

Obviously your lack of expertise and your ignorance of reputable scientific papers leaves you out in the cold.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.01147v1.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00921

http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.03447

 

[The God]

Obviously your lack of expertise and your ignorance of reputable scientific papers leaves you out in the cold.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1509.01147v1.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00921

http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.03447

You again jumped. I am yet to answer those 3 questions..

Meanwhile if you have any worthwhile non copy paste type argument against R1 to R4, please try that. Don't clutter the thread with your copy pastes.

 

[paddoboy]

Let's make it clear so that people will understand, that proposing to invalidate, surpass or deride accepted mainstream cosmology, is for the big boys....the giants at the coal face, and at the 'scopes, and particle accelerators like LHC.
This is s science forum. It is for the sprouting by amateur lay people of all types, including by all types of erroneous anti mainstream "would be's if they could be's" and there comments, thoughts, opinions and such. None are qualified or credentialed. We occupy a narrow band of cyber space and it should be realised that what one says here, what one claims here, what one opines here, is never going to be realised or even noticed by science academia.That is Fact!
Mainstream science stands firm on solid ground, and progresses as we speak, through the work done by those giants at the coal face, who in turn lean on the work and efforts of the giants of the past.
It's actually laughable that the attempts portrayed on this forum in various threads, to invalidate or throw some bad light on mainstream accepted cosmology, is to most forumites, in one ear and out the other.

No amount of self appraised delusions of grandeur and inflated egos will ever change that.

An excellent thread posted some time ago, will show how the scientific method and peer review operates.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/for-the-alternative-theorists.141223/
Anyone with alternative theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures:

[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite accompli" It most certainly isn't:

[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...

[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:

[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:

[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:

[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support:

[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it.

[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:

[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:

[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.

[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories:
Addendum:
Make damn sure that you understand current theory as it is presented by the "main stream" before you embark on your exploration of new frontiers. That is the starting point. Our recent troubles are caused by the fact that our would-be Hawkings don't even understand the first postulate(Relativity) and flat out deny the second postulate(constant, invariant c)yet still claim to understand the theory based only on those two postulates. This is not rationality, it is delusion.

 

[The God]

http://tevnphwg.fnal.gov/results/SM_Higgs_Summer_12/

Tevatron New Phenomena & Higgs Working Group



Updated Combination of CDF and DØ's Searches for Standard Model Higgs Boson Production with up to 10.0 fb-1 of Data
June 2012
Preliminary Results
95% C.L. exclusion for SM Higgs with mass mH between 147 and 180 GeV/c2, and between 100 and 103 GeV/c2.
An excess with a significance of 2.5σ is seen that might be interpreted as coming from a Higgs boson with a mass in the region of 115 to 135 GeV. An excess with a significance of 2.9σ is seen in the combination of CDF and DØ's H→bb channels.

The results of combinations of searches for H→bb, H→W+W-, and H→γγ are shown as well.

Documentation: arXiv:1207.0449 [hep-ex]

more at link.......

Can you please tell the connection of this copy paste with OP or with any poster's response ? Please write 2 lines how this copy paste is of any relevance on the OP.

 

[expletives deleted]

James R:

Information is an abstract concept. But then, so is energy. Energy is a useful abstract quantity in physics precisely because it is often conserved. This thread is about whether information is also a conserved quantity when it comes to black holes.

I'm working from the perspective of what is actually being observed, manipulated and calculated in a real sense not in abstract sense. Energy being a real sense thing which transforms but is never lost to the universe. Information is not a real sense thing observed, manipulated and calculated in real sense, only in abstract sense; its transformations depend on what humans do with it in equations. Information may be encoded in various forms of real things but is limited in density and perfect retrievability. Unlike energy which is the whole real thing itself in whatever form, and is fully retrievable via transformation into other real thing or number of things which equal what energy went into the pre-transformation real thing. My opinion is based on that difference. Information doesn't actually exist as a fully transformable and retrievable real thing in all circumstances; but energy does exist always and is never lost to irretrievability. Energy is real thing and its physical quanta, interactions and transformations may be abstractly treated in our equations; Information is not real thing and only its attributed abstract properties can be treated in our equations too. For example, I can create new information by creating a new code and message in a created language; I can also destroy that Information by destroying the recording medium and the key to the code for retrieving that information. But new Energy cannot be created by us, only observed and manipulated; and any information we encoded onto it or attributed to it can be destroyed as I just described.
The crucial functional distinction subsists in their respective creatability, transformability and retrievability in practice; while these may equally abstractable in mathematical analysis sense, they are not equal in physically real existence and conservable sense. Does that make sense at all?

I'm not sure what "amorphous magnetic energies" you're referring to. The LHC collides beams of protons.

It accelerates beams of particles via input electromagnetic energy. The collisions themselves are discrete particle to particle, not as overall beam to beam. The energies involved in any particular particle to particle meetings will depend on whether head on or glancing to various degrees. That energy also includes the amorphous additional kinetic energies imparted to the particles by the LHC electromagnetic accelerator magnetic fields.

Particles can only interact and decay in particular ways according to the Standard Model of Particle Physics. It is certainly not the case that the processes taking place in the LHC are entirely random. There are, of course, many different possible products from a high-energy proton-proton collision. The detectors at the LHC are there to detect as many of those products as possible. Once the products of a particular collision are known, the collision event itself can be reconstructed using what we know about particle physics.

My understanding is that the art of the LHC is to find previously unknown or undetected collision and after-collision reformation products which carry away the energies involved. So no precise information about what's going on is possible unless we have all that information encoded in some way in the products and the energy leaking away in non-particle forms (such as electromagnetic field energy dispersed back into the LHC background materials and fields. That is my understanding. I could be wrong.

I'm not sure what your point is about the products not reproducing the "forms of energy and particles input to collision". Energy is conserved in LHC collisions. The inputs are usually just fast protons. The processes are reconstructed from the information collected by those rather large detectors they have there.

The detectors record the charge and paths and energy levels, I understand. Any information we deduce from all that is via abstract statistical analysis and we interpret what that information means in terms of the assumptions, theory and modeling expectations. Such information as we retrieve that way may be incorrect or incomplete; but the energy going in and coming out is always correct and complete, even if we have insufficient information to precisely determine exact values in any particular particle to particle meeting which may be glancing or full on. That is what I base my opinion on.

The input energies are known very precisely. The LHC is as large as it is and as expensive as it is precisely because physicists wanted it to be able to accelerate protons to a very specific energy level.

They accelerate beams of bunches, for which the aggregate energies can be approximated closely; but exact energies involved in any particular meeting of individual particles has not actually been individually measured, only attributed its average share of the overall beam/bunch energy. Statistical assumptions and treatments of the aftermath products and energies are backrelated to statistical assumptions and treatments of pre collision and at collision modeling and expectations. That is my understanding. I could be wrong.

I'm not sure how you're defining or measuring "information" here. Perhaps you can explain.

That is my point. What we can measure is not information, only energy quantities and forms. Any abstract information we attribute or encode in some way onto those real physical things may be incorrect or incomplete and may become irretrievable once those real things are transformed is such a way that encoded information is scrambled, becoming partially or completely irretrievable in the form it has before transformation. The energy and forms still exist, but its forms and behavior may not allow restoration of original information to its original totality; some may be lost to irretrievability by our sensors and analysis.

And in relation to black holes, are you familiar with how "information" is defined and calculated there?

I am familiar with the Holographic Principle and other hypothesized recording/retrieving possibilities of Event Horizons, but I am skeptical. At the quantum level, the uncertainty principle related physical effects override classical continuity and reversibility concepts. The same applies below the EH. That is another reason I am of the opinion that information is an abstract and subject to real physical quantum chaos dictated non conservability and irretrievability. The LHC example was a milder case of such quantum uncertainty related effects on information. Energy is always conserved; Information not necessarily so.

No. It's a physics problem. As I understand it, information, rigorously defined, seems to be conserved in physical processes. If it isn't conserved in black holes then we have a physics problem to solve. Famously, Stephen Hawking has spent many years worrying about this issue.

I have to respectfully disagree with you there, James R. It's only an assumed physical problem; the assumption being that information is a physically real quantity or thing in the first place. I am viewing it from the above examples involving quantum uncertainty and irretrievability problems for information; and also from our being able to create information and destroy it as with my codemaking, code encoding and code and retrievability key destruction example.

This is only my opinion. I may be all wrong. But all the above is the basis for my arguments for my opinions. I hope my opinion hasn't offended anyone.

I am very grateful, James R, for your respectful, scholarly and gentlemanly engagement with me, a newbie, on the on-topic issue; many members could do much worse than emulate your fine example. Thanks.

 

[paddoboy]

You again jumped. I am yet to answer those 3 questions..

Meanwhile if you have any worthwhile non copy paste type argument against R1 to R4, please try that. Don't clutter the thread with your copy pastes.

As with your gravitational lensing fabricated problem, there are no questions or answers re mainstream, at least not from you, going on your past record.

 

[The God]

As with your gravitational lensing fabricated problem, there are no questions or answers re mainstream, at least not from you, going on your past record.

So basically you are here to troll or at the best clutter the threads with copy pastes....

 

[paddoboy]

Can you please tell the connection of this copy paste with OP or with any poster's response ? Please write 2 lines how this copy paste is of any relevance on the OP.

I'm not here to lead you by the hand. And of course your past record and intellectual dishonesty is reason enough for me to ignore your claim. That is evident in the gravitational lensing thread, where you made a half hearted apology. Like I said, if you read the article/s you'll get your answer.

 

[paddoboy]

So basically you are here to troll or at the best clutter the threads with copy pastes....

It appears you are the troll though, as evident in the gravitational lensing thread where you half heatedly apologised for more dishonest claims. Do better.
You also have no credentials, which says it all.

 

[The God]

It appears you are the troll though, as evident in the gravitational lensing thread where you half heatedly apologised for more dishonest claims. Do better.
You also have no credentials, which says it all.

Lo, this man is irrepressible.

Me and half hearted apology ? What a pathetic liar you are, not worthy of any kind of engagement.

 

[paddoboy]

The energies involved are most certainly known by our experimenters.
http://cds.cern.ch/record/1165534/files/CERN-Brochure-2009-003-Eng.pdf

Here's another on collision energies and such.........
http://cds.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2015/49/News Articles/2105084

Do you need anymore oh divine one?