Re: information loss in black holes

From: Oz (oz_at_farmeroz.port995.com)
Date: 08/13/04 

Date: 13 Aug 2004 06:41:23 -0400

Frank Hellmann <Certhas@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>> 'TV' (at infinity) + BH -> BH having absorbed TV
>>
>> Should both contain the same amount of information.
>
>Well... Now you are talking Black Holes I wasn't talking about the
>Black Hole information paradox, I was just talking about the general
>stage.

OK.

>QM is of the nature described above, always the same information.
>Classical GR kind of is, though the information within the Black Hole
>is inaccesible to people outside it it still exists. Now if a
>blackhole evaporates in finite time via perfectly thermal hawking
>radiation that information is gone forever. That would violate
>unitarity in QM which basically says that there always exists a good
>inverse operator with which one can undo the time evolution (not
>neccesarily we, but Descartes Demon could)

Is this actually so? Is this what unitarity really means?

This is very interesting.

This in effect states that given some state, one can always time-reverse
it to an earlier state(s). I am assuming full 4D description here, time
is immutable both backwards and forwards.

I don't believe that. QM systems are inherently statistical. There is a
deep theoretical uncertainty built into the entire theory. Chaos theory
enforces different evolutionary paths for arbitrarily close states in
the appropriate situation so it seems inevitable to me that time
reversing any given complex state can produce a range of possible
results.

There will be ONE inverse operator which will precisely reverse any
state, under any conditions, but this will be one of (typically) a
myriad allowable inverse states that each produce a different result.

So I can give you an inverse operator that removes a TV from the BH, it
will likely contain all the information required to make the TV in the
first place. It will be one of a myriad inverse operators that can
remove anything you want from a black hole. Just they are terribly
improbable compared to thermal radiation.

If QM as currently formulated insists that the waveform of a complex
particle defines its temporal evolution for all time when observed by an
outside observer then it is flawed. That implies all waveforms in the
universe are forever pre determined which implies that a better theory
could predict the future and the uncertainty of QM is a sham.

>When talking about microscopical information we are really talking
>about the nature of the time evolution. Specifically if it is
>invertible.

Indeed. I have discussed this in various 'antiparticles are particles
travelling back in time' threads. The discussion seems to peter out
pretty fast so I haven't been able to properly thrash it out and see why
I am wrong.

However I currently think antiparticles ARE particles travelling
backwards in time and they give an uncertainty in reverse time
evolution. That is antiparticles (and that would include virtual
antiparticles) CAN alter the past, and time-evolve 'backwards' in the
same way as particles. These are of course very short range particles
(so the effect is short range in time) or very rare (so having very
little statistical effect) in the perceived forward timeflow of
macroscopic bodies. That is I do not believe that a given state now will
uniquely and precisely predict its state in the past nor its state in
the future. To achieve a close approximation of that we need a detector
that has two states involving many particles that has two states
('detected' and 'undetected') that have very few paths between them and
a highly improbable reverse path.

We see an immutable forward progress of time because the possible
reverse paths of a macroscopic body are totally dominated by the
classical paths and so any alternative is totally improbable for the
group. Paths where an electron is *here* rather than *there* have no
observable effect (detectors excluded).

Hmm, in a way its just feynman in qed writ large.

So no, I don;t agree with your statement of unitarity. There are reverse
functions that will precisely reverse time, but outside the simplest
systems these will be one of many that reverse to a slightly different
state. Who is to say this other state isn't the one we started off with? 

-- 
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
BTOPENWORLD address about to cease.      DEMON address no longer in use.
>>Use oz@farmeroz.port995.com<<
ozacoohdb@despammed.com still functions.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Confirming Dollos Law: Evolution Cant be Reversed Directly
    ... Can Evolution Run in Reverse? ... the receptor changed shape, so that it became very sensitive to cortisol ... and his colleagues reversed these key mutations to their old form. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Confirming Dollos Law: Evolution Cant be Reversed Directly
    ... Can Evolution Run in Reverse? ... the receptor changed shape, so that it became very sensitive to cortisol ... and his colleagues reversed these key mutations to their old form. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Confirming Dollos Law: Evolution Cant be Reversed Directly
    ... Can Evolution Run in Reverse? ... By comparing the receptor to related proteins, ... and his colleagues reversed these key mutations to their old form. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Confirming Dollos Law: Evolution Cant be Reversed Directly
    ... Examining the evolution of one protein, a team of scientists declares the answer is no, saying new mutations make it practically impossible for evolution to reverse direction. ... They studied a protein called a glucocorticoid receptor that helps humans and most other vertebrates cope with stress by grabbing a hormone called cortisol and then switching on stress-defense genes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Micro and Macro Evolution ?
    ... Or we could imagine something vaguely like ... I suspect that evolution is largely ... occur in reverse is absurdly improbable. ... But given the right sequence of selective environments and mutations, ...
    (talk.origins)