Information Paradox

[Markus Hanke]

For those of you who are interested in this. There’s been a flurry of papers on the subject over the past three years in particular, but it was very difficult to get the big picture. This is a nice, plain language summary.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-most-famous-paradox-in-physics-nears-its-end-20201029/

[MigL]

Read your linked article; thanks for posting.
I don't think I'll ever understand the papers that have led to these conclusions, but they seem to rely on 'mathematical tricks', somewhat similar to renormalization, to make sense of the non-sensical.
But if these tricks, such as entanglement entropy and quantum extremal surfaces inside event horizons, point us in the right direction and towards a quantum field theory of gravity ( like Hawking did with his 'semi-quantum' evaporative radiation ) so much the better.

[geordief]

Hopefully  will get through the article in time.I like the bit where they are supposedly disappointed to have achieved their aim  without needing to have solved quantum gravity as part of the process.

Also like the comments at the bottom.(they help me to assimilate the article as they are much easier to read!! )

Edited December 9, 2021 by geordief

[joigus]

It seems to be a semiclassical calculation, in which they've thrown in elements of quantum information theory.

It's always a good thing that you can get confirmation of robust physical principles from approximate pictures of the physics. 

Thanks a lot.

[studiot]

11 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

For those of you who are interested in this. There’s been a flurry of papers on the subject over the past three years in particular, but it was very difficult to get the big picture. This is a nice, plain language summary.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-most-famous-paradox-in-physics-nears-its-end-20201029/

 

I liked the bit about using D'Alembert's statistical mistake with the two coins.

Thanks a lot for the reference. +1

[Markus Hanke]

14 hours ago, joigus said:

It seems to be a semiclassical calculation, in which they've thrown in elements of quantum information theory.

It's always a good thing that you can get confirmation of robust physical principles from approximate pictures of the physics. 

Thanks a lot.

Indeed. I think it’s important to make this really clear - it’s based on a semiclassical approach, meaning it’s standard GR with standard quantum field theory thrown in, but accounting for more quantum effects than Hawking did. It’s not about full quantum gravity, and only seeks to address the specific issue of the information paradox.

I’m personally excited that it appears to further hint at the idea of spacetime not being fundamental, but an emergent phenomenon.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Discussion on emergent phenomena has been split

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/126248-what-does-emergent-mean-in-a-physics-context-split-from-information-paradox/