Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424642 > unrolled thread

the information paradox

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  the information paradox RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-12 12:52 -0700
    Re: the information paradox Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 12:57 -0700
    Re: the information paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-12 14:44 -0700
      Re: the information paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-12 19:46 -0700
        Re: the information paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-12 21:27 -0700
          Re: the information paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-14 09:33 -0700
    Re: the information paradox "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 21:31 -0700

#424642 — the information paradox

There's been a kerfuffle about information disappearing 
into black holes.  The Information Conservationists claim 
victory, but it seems still moot.  

In a recent seminar on the topic, the speaker claimed 
that if information leaks out via Hawking radiation, 
we encounter a conundrum: escaping a black hole, requires 
faster than light transport, violating etc.  The premise 
here is that information is a 'thing', which must obey relativity.

Does this argument stand up?  SR is a classical theory, 
of stuff moving through space.  Black hole evaporation 
is a purely quantum phenomenon, which doesn't utilize 
classical spacetime paths.  

The reasoning strikes me as specious.  Anyhow, it's certainly 
grist for a relativity board - 

Similarly, if it entails an entangled pair, inside & 
outside the horizon, then pair correlations ought to 
persist, according to QM, again violating relativity.

--
Rich

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#424643

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 9:52:50 AM UTC-10, RichD wrote:
> There's been a kerfuffle about information disappearing 
> into black holes.  The Information Conservationists claim 
> victory, but it seems still moot.  
> 
> In a recent seminar on the topic, the speaker claimed 
> that if information leaks out via Hawking radiation, 
> we encounter a conundrum: escaping a black hole, requires 
> faster than light transport, violating etc.  The premise 
> here is that information is a 'thing', which must obey relativity.
> 
> Does this argument stand up?  SR is a classical theory, 
> of stuff moving through space.  Black hole evaporation 
> is a purely quantum phenomenon, which doesn't utilize 
> classical spacetime paths.  
> 
> The reasoning strikes me as specious.  Anyhow, it's certainly 
> grist for a relativity board - 
> 
> Similarly, if it entails an entangled pair, inside & 
> outside the horizon, then pair correlations ought to 
> persist, according to QM, again violating relativity.
> 
> --
> Rich

Discussions of this should be specific about which 
particle is entangled: electrons? Be specific about
"information" as a wave or a particle or a photon
or any specific observable. Vague algebra about
black holes glosses over any useful details like that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424646

RichD wrote:
> 
> There's been a kerfuffle about information disappearing
> into black holes.  The Information Conservationists claim
> victory, but it seems still moot.

It doesn't disapear into black holes, it just goes in..
you can be on the inside or other side of the black hole to watch it coming in.

> 
> In a recent seminar on the topic, the speaker claimed
> that if information leaks out via Hawking radiation,
> we encounter a conundrum: escaping a black hole, requires
> faster than light transport, violating etc.  The premise
> here is that information is a 'thing', which must obey relativity.

That is why Einstein hated Neil...it was Neil who began the agrgument that information travels faster than light.

And Einstein believes the opposite. It's not that information must obey relativity...it's that
information must obey Albert Einstein. It's not Science, it's personal. 







> 
> Does this argument stand up?  SR is a classical theory,
> of stuff moving through space.  Black hole evaporation
> is a purely quantum phenomenon, which doesn't utilize
> classical spacetime paths.


It depends on who you obey.

> 
> The reasoning strikes me as specious.  Anyhow, it's certainly
> grist for a relativity board -
> 
> Similarly, if it entails an entangled pair, inside &
> outside the horizon, then pair correlations ought to
> persist, according to QM, again violating relativity.
> 
> --
> Rich


It's not violation relativity...it's violating Albert Einstein. 


It's anti-semetic Science. 


They are both..just theroies anyway.


There is no information paradox. It's just a difference of opinion caused by...friction.



The Starmaker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424680

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> RichD wrote:
> >
> > There's been a kerfuffle about information disappearing
> > into black holes.  The Information Conservationists claim
> > victory, but it seems still moot.
> 
> It doesn't disapear into black holes, it just goes in..
> you can be on the inside or other side of the black hole to watch it coming in.
> 
> >
> > In a recent seminar on the topic, the speaker claimed
> > that if information leaks out via Hawking radiation,
> > we encounter a conundrum: escaping a black hole, requires
> > faster than light transport, violating etc.  The premise
> > here is that information is a 'thing', which must obey relativity.
> 
> That is why Einstein hated Neil...it was Neil who began the agrgument that information travels faster than light.
> 
> And Einstein believes the opposite. It's not that information must obey relativity...it's that
> information must obey Albert Einstein. It's not Science, it's personal.
> 
> >
> > Does this argument stand up?  SR is a classical theory,
> > of stuff moving through space.  Black hole evaporation
> > is a purely quantum phenomenon, which doesn't utilize
> > classical spacetime paths.
> 
> It depends on who you obey.
> 
> >
> > The reasoning strikes me as specious.  Anyhow, it's certainly
> > grist for a relativity board -
> >
> > Similarly, if it entails an entangled pair, inside &
> > outside the horizon, then pair correlations ought to
> > persist, according to QM, again violating relativity.
> >
> > --
> > Rich
> 
> It's not violation relativity...it's violating Albert Einstein.
> 
> It's anti-semetic Science.
> 
> They are both..just theroies anyway.
> 
> There is no information paradox. It's just a difference of opinion caused by...friction.
> 
> The Starmaker



In other words, 

einstein - nothing faster than the speed of light

Bohr - information travels faster than the speed of light


Pick a side, and kill the other side.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424688

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > RichD wrote:
> > >
> > > There's been a kerfuffle about information disappearing
> > > into black holes.  The Information Conservationists claim
> > > victory, but it seems still moot.
> >
> > It doesn't disapear into black holes, it just goes in..
> > you can be on the inside or other side of the black hole to watch it coming in.
> >
> > >
> > > In a recent seminar on the topic, the speaker claimed
> > > that if information leaks out via Hawking radiation,
> > > we encounter a conundrum: escaping a black hole, requires
> > > faster than light transport, violating etc.  The premise
> > > here is that information is a 'thing', which must obey relativity.
> >
> > That is why Einstein hated Neil...it was Neil who began the agrgument that information travels faster than light.
> >
> > And Einstein believes the opposite. It's not that information must obey relativity...it's that
> > information must obey Albert Einstein. It's not Science, it's personal.
> >
> > >
> > > Does this argument stand up?  SR is a classical theory,
> > > of stuff moving through space.  Black hole evaporation
> > > is a purely quantum phenomenon, which doesn't utilize
> > > classical spacetime paths.
> >
> > It depends on who you obey.
> >
> > >
> > > The reasoning strikes me as specious.  Anyhow, it's certainly
> > > grist for a relativity board -
> > >
> > > Similarly, if it entails an entangled pair, inside &
> > > outside the horizon, then pair correlations ought to
> > > persist, according to QM, again violating relativity.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rich
> >
> > It's not violation relativity...it's violating Albert Einstein.
> >
> > It's anti-semetic Science.
> >
> > They are both..just theories anyway.
> >
> > There is no information paradox. It's just a difference of opinion caused by...friction.
> >
> > The Starmaker
> 
> In other words,
> 
> einstein - nothing faster than the speed of light
> 
> Bohr - information travels faster than the speed of light
> 
> Pick a side, and kill the other side.


I mean, this has been going on since the 1930's....and you're still at it????


Maybe you guys got fooled with the word..."entangled". It's just another word for that 1930's term, ...quantum mechanics.


It's sooooooo 1930's...


Have you guys ever considered thinking for yourselves????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424876

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > RichD wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There's been a kerfuffle about information disappearing
> > > > into black holes.  The Information Conservationists claim
> > > > victory, but it seems still moot.
> > >
> > > It doesn't disapear into black holes, it just goes in..
> > > you can be on the inside or other side of the black hole to watch it coming in.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > In a recent seminar on the topic, the speaker claimed
> > > > that if information leaks out via Hawking radiation,
> > > > we encounter a conundrum: escaping a black hole, requires
> > > > faster than light transport, violating etc.  The premise
> > > > here is that information is a 'thing', which must obey relativity.
> > >
> > > That is why Einstein hated Neil...it was Neil who began the agrgument that information travels faster than light.
> > >
> > > And Einstein believes the opposite. It's not that information must obey relativity...it's that
> > > information must obey Albert Einstein. It's not Science, it's personal.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Does this argument stand up?  SR is a classical theory,
> > > > of stuff moving through space.  Black hole evaporation
> > > > is a purely quantum phenomenon, which doesn't utilize
> > > > classical spacetime paths.
> > >
> > > It depends on who you obey.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The reasoning strikes me as specious.  Anyhow, it's certainly
> > > > grist for a relativity board -
> > > >
> > > > Similarly, if it entails an entangled pair, inside &
> > > > outside the horizon, then pair correlations ought to
> > > > persist, according to QM, again violating relativity.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Rich
> > >
> > > It's not violation relativity...it's violating Albert Einstein.
> > >
> > > It's anti-semetic Science.
> > >
> > > They are both..just theories anyway.
> > >
> > > There is no information paradox. It's just a difference of opinion caused by...friction.
> > >
> > > The Starmaker
> >
> > In other words,
> >
> > einstein - nothing faster than the speed of light
> >
> > Bohr - information travels faster than the speed of light
> >
> > Pick a side, and kill the other side.
> 
> I mean, this has been going on since the 1930's....and you're still at it????
> 
> Maybe you guys got fooled with the word..."entangled". It's just another word for that 1930's term, ...quantum mechanics.
> 
> It's sooooooo 1930's...
> 
> Have you guys ever considered thinking for yourselves????


I guess everybody doesn't understand 'quantum entangled' (quantum
mechanics) except me. 



Maybe this quote also needs to be updated:

[I can't accept entanglement because] "I like to think the moon is there
even if I am not looking at it. It sounds spooky"

--Albert Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#424689

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 12:52:50 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> There's been a kerfuffle about information disappearing 
> into black holes.  The Information Conservationists claim 
> victory, but it seems still moot.  
> 
> In a recent seminar on the topic, the speaker claimed 
> that if information leaks out via Hawking radiation, 
> we encounter a conundrum: escaping a black hole, requires 
> faster than light transport, violating etc.  The premise 
> here is that information is a 'thing', which must obey relativity.
> 
> Does this argument stand up?  SR is a classical theory, 
> of stuff moving through space.  Black hole evaporation 
> is a purely quantum phenomenon, which doesn't utilize 
> classical spacetime paths.  
> 
> The reasoning strikes me as specious.  Anyhow, it's certainly 
> grist for a relativity board - 
> 
> Similarly, if it entails an entangled pair, inside & 
> outside the horizon, then pair correlations ought to 
> persist, according to QM, again violating relativity.
> 
> --
> Rich

Information that goes in to a black hole 
is not coming out.  Virtual evaporation 
from the usual positronic sea falling 
inside and outside the event horizon, 
and the particle and anti-particle 
evaporating from the event horizon, 
is not so much information except 
that a black hole is there.  

I don't see the problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web