Starship Asterisk*

I have been trying to understand why physicists do not like information being destroyed when a black hole evaporates. The limit of what I have gleaned so far is that quantum mechanics forbids it. The logic is not much above saying that the ball is red because light reflected by it has that color. It is less than satisfying.

Why does quantum mechanics forbid a system from losing information about its original state when it changes to another? Is there a better answer than “Because it does”?

The paradox is yours.

The state change can be summed up in the known states of H2O, relate to that and you get the idea.

The dependency is upon the environment to cause change of state.
(IE, H2O, temp and preasure, and other compounds (air, as we know it).)

in 4 words: wrong place to ask.

<<I have been trying to understand why physicists do not like information being destroyed when a black hole evaporates. The limit of what I have gleaned so far is that quantum mechanics forbids it. The logic is not much above saying that the ball is red because light reflected by it has that color. It is less than satisfying.

Why does quantum mechanics forbid a system from losing information about its original state when it changes to another? Is there a better answer than “Because it does”?>>

Yo, Maddad;

Could this be a 'Conservation of Consciousness' principle at work?
In terms of the 'information' loss. What happens to protons affects the rest mass of other protons, so if that 'information' disappears, it would cause ripples in the rest masses, like a stone into a calm pool of water, and that 'disturbance' would violate some kind of something. (or a better metaphor might be a stone size scoop of water disappears from the surface of the pool, and the inrushing water to fill the void, causes the resulting ripples in rest-mass information)

If the idea that the rest-mass of a proton is determined by its relationship with all the other protons in its awareable universe, (and there is some mainstream consensus on this), then a change in the proton population numbers would cause rest-mass ripples in an 'information' sense to propagate outward from this 'disturbance'.

Are protons in a black hole really totally cut off from the rest of the universe in an information sense already? and so their evaporation is not really a change? I would say, No they are not 'cut-off' from communication with the 'outside'. Their Inertia/Momentum component is still communicating via gravity. As a black hole evaporates, the remaining material or particles (or pure wave-form interactions, as I like to call them) are becoming more concentrated or distilled and contain more 'information' per unit; so the resulting sudden information loss at final evaporation moment would be a sudden large event. As Energy ( or the Infinite) can neither be created nor destroyed, a sudden information event might require 'energy' of some sort to be suddenly created. Thusly the evaporation of distilled information is in violation of the 'creating of energy' principle. ("Luke, I sense a sudden change in the Force!")

Protons communicating rest-mass information is a form of Consciousness. The Inertia/Momentum component which protons have, is the vector by which Time enters or shows up in this universe. The Inertia/Momentum component when on this side of the event horizon, is contained in the baryonic matter (protons, neutrons); but on the black hole's side of the event horizon Inertia/Momentum is unbounded (like Energy on this side is free to fly all over the place). Inertia changes places with Energy, in its 'like-ness' on the black hole side of the event horizon. Hawking in his book "A Brief History of Space and Time", describes time becoming 'space-like' and space becoming 'time-like' on the black hole side of the event horizon. I see Inertia and Energy exchanging 'like-nesses' as well. In how, Energy will become 'bound' by the speed of light requirement to 'go anywhere'. The escape velocity is the speed of light at the event horizon. So beyond the event horizon any motion must be faster than the speed of light. Since EM spectrum radiation etc is a speed of light event, it is now bound and fettered into a locked position, it is no longer free to fly around; in this sense it is like Inertia/Momentum's being bound up and locked into the proton.

Inertia/Momentum on the other hand, is now free to fly all over the place, in its communication sense, it becomes like Energy. It is now the 'great communicator of information' on the black hole side of the event horizon. On our side of the event horizon, light is the great communicator. Light is one aspect of Energy. (Inertia/Momentum is one aspect of the Changeless; another aspect is Time)

When a black hole would evaporate, I see it as a distilled and concentrated information residue would suddenly disappear from the universe, and the resulting 'waves' would violate some kind of conservation principle, and might require a creation of energy to effect the propagation of that disappearance of information being transmitted.

This is an in the moment grasp via a Dobsonian Cosmology viewpoint, on my part, so there may be some conflicting perspectives. It's meant as a springboard for your further thinking if one of the views sparks an understanding.

makc wrote:in 4 words: wrong place to ask.

Ok. I'm open to suggestions. Where should I have asked this?



kovil
You give me the impression that you have considered this issue long before I asked it here. Thank you for your response, by the way. It's going to take me a while to sort through what you said, but it appears that your case involves the information (communication?) equating to mass. Was that your intention?

The next issue I wonder about is the conservation of [mass]/energy that you brought up. We call it a law in no small part because we see no examples of its violation. If we are willing to say that it must be a law, then certain calculations become easy; quantities become knowable. So we like matter/energy conservation to be a law. But because it is convenient to us, does that make it true?

Maddad wrote:

makc wrote:in 4 words: wrong place to ask.

Ok. I'm open to suggestions. Where should I have asked this?

[snip]

Try Physics Forums.

AFAIK, there are essentially no constraints on your questions, from anything anyone can do, today, via astronomical observations or 'lab experiments' ... if there were, then your questions could be relatively easily answered.

So, the only realm in which at least some kinds of answers are possible is that of the relevant theories - quantum theory and GR.

And a good place to learn more about each of these, and the various attempts to find a way to unify them, is PF.

Thank you Nereid. On another board that uses this software, administrative types have the capacity to move threads around. I would be happy to see this one go to the Physics Forums.

It's a separate internet discussion forum - physicsforums.com - run by a separate entity.

I guess I got in the habit of hanging around here, as after a while relationships develop and the daily photos are so great.

Maddad,

For 5 years Dobson was my focus of study. I tried to say too much too fast. Information isn't the same as mass, but it is connected to it somehow, hadn't thought of it that way. My goal is to merge Dobson's ideas into mainstream science. Both will benefit, mostly mainstream. It will also help me to understand it better.

Briefly, Dobson's view is; There are 3 distinct aspects which show up in this universe, and they come directly from 3 fundamental principles that make up reality. The underlying principles are ; and their derivatives are:

The Changeless - from which Momentum/Inertia shows up here, Time shows up in this as well.

The Infinite - from which Energy shows up as discrete electrical particles; the protons and electrons, and also the electromagnetic spectrum of Energy propagations.

The Undivided - from which gravity shows up, as well as the attraction between oppositely charged electrical particles. I suppose electrical repulsion is also implicated somehow.

Anyway, the Changeless, the Infinite and the Undivided are what lie beyond our 'Observable Universe'. Before the Sanskrit language was spoken this was deduced by logic, and that understanding is built into the Sanskrit language. (the train of logic is another post for another time if you would like)

But here in this universe we 'mistake' the Changeless for what we see as 'changing' and all inertia/momentum calculations use 'change' as the centerpiece of their maths.
We mistake the Infinite by thinking that the 'finite' and tiny electrical particles are short lived and small, not infinite, as being so fungible they can change so quickly.
We mistake the Undivided and see things as divided in space and time. The universe is so big, we do not see it as undivided. The Undividedness principle wants to draw everything into one place, or merge electrical charges into equilibrium.

This is a very Hindu viewpoint; and at the fundamental level it is almost impossible to separate religious views from conceptual cosmology and theoretical physics. It takes a "Holy Man (or woman) who has no religion" to do so. That is my current practice, 'How can a holy man have no religion?' Being no body, going no where.

So may I pose the question;

What happens when a black hole meets a perfect vacuum?

kovil wrote:[snip]

So may I pose the question;

What happens when a black hole meets a perfect vacuum?

Here's a more basic question: what is 'a perfect vacuum'?

More generally, if what you wrote in your post is an accurate summary of Dobson's ideas, then I can't see how this would be an appropriate place to discuss them.

Why?

Many reasons, but perhaps the most basic is that those ideas can't be tested - even in principle - within the any realistic extension of astronomy that I can think of.

And astronomy is what this forum is about ...

kovil wrote:What happens when a black hole meets a perfect vacuum?

They marry?

Interesting, kovil. While Einstein was Jewish culturally, he did some speculating that Buddhism was closer to the way he viewed God than other religions. That's not too far from Hindi.

I have access to a little Sanscrit. Reviewed a book written in 171 AD in India which used some Sanscrit. Then read another book written at the same time by another man who appeared to be a friend of the first author. Both carried Sanscrit dictionaries at the back. It's an artificial language, created to advance trade from one region to another. Died out a while back, but documents like these great poems give us a glimpse of how they were used.

You did mention Sanscrit, didn't you? I sorta lost track.