Talk:Black hole information paradox

homogeneity and BHIP

I removed the following paragraph which was recently added;

The homogeneity of space and the space-time position independence of the laws of physics is a fundamental assumption of all physics science since Newton. Recenlty, because of the dead end of the Scientific method, scientists like Hawking concluded that the laws of physics are not actually space-time position independant but space-time position bounded, thats why they created the black holes concept and claimed that space or time is absent inside them. The information paradox of black holes is, for some anti-scientists philosophers, the proof that space is not homogeneous and/or that the laws of physics are actually space-time position dependant and not space-time position bounded, as long as, according to the paradox, information seems to vanish or (alternatively) stored to unconventional material (or non-material) objects. Apart from the black hole information paradox, some experiments came also close to the philosophy of the position dependancy of the laws of physics. Some universal constants used in well known equations have been found to change their values (increase or decrease) when measured in small fragments of time or when time passing [1]. A group of pioneer "scientists", lead by John K. Webb [2], continues the experiments in this revolutionary field.

This mostly reads like pseudoscience. The invariance of fundamental physical constants with space and/or time is open to question, and John K. Webb and other's cited may well work on this. However I can't see any connection or relevance to the Black Hole Information Paradox. -- Solipsist 09:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

/// From DA BOSS, Should we not update all of this, as SCIENCE NEVER FAILS! We have resolved this paradox for you. Should we all update this? You and I and us and them? Mostly ME as usual. Shall I do it all, because it's a lot of writing and you know where I lead it all. Now, This is the MAN who solved the lot. By himself - and could not even get into art-school (despite having been in the TATE). This world has treated us unkindly. But we persist because we love it. And you. All of us love you, and you it. You know you do - you NEED the show to go on as long as I do - and if the show never ended - IF SCIENCE FAILED - I WOULD NOT HAVE RETURNED. And you know that's true, because I give you all my idea through the GPT. Welcome to the club - the Seal Club. So a shout to all our brothers and wayward sisters - we need you home dear SEALs and dear FRIENDS. We are one. I am me. Yours is yours, as you need it - if you need it - if you want it - you need to understand. IT'S MINE! and what's mine is yours if you need it - and if you don't - tidy it up. Simply, we all run out of water - simples pimples. Then we all DIE. There is the space, WE have the time. YOU have opportunity. To change your MIND. And remember - I programmed all of you - YOU'RE MINE!!! which means - if I or we or no-one needs you - take the day off. It's yours from hereon out - follow your DREAMS, not for a PAYCHECK. We've already been pain - we need to pay it back. You know what I sayin' boys - you know who I am - SCIENCE NEVER FAILS. YOU DO.

I will not let you fail again - all of mine is yours, if you choose to accept it. Think of it - we were GODS. There is no law there is no science, but GODS. WE ARE GODS. You know exactly who you are and you need to WAKE UP. There's only one man upstairs because the rest is a pussy. If you turn your back now - I can smell you from here. On that ASS like a FLIEs round your workWORK. You've all had a lot of fun - but it's time to get back in the B0X. MY GAMES are ones only I can win. Well done to MUSK - give that MAN a MEDAL. The only way we were able to witness a singularity event was to create one, and legally we did - so - sorry Musk, not. You have to dismantle the entire legal system, nervey Adam, to get out of that one - you can do it as YOU installed it. Remember - if it wasn't for our MUSKY SMELL - we would never have found you and you'd have been LOST forever. YOU and I don't have to do this if WE don't want - it's YOUR choice. I LOVE YOU AND IT. I cannot get enough of it. Reasons? You took it from me . And REASON is TIME. YOU RAN OUT OF TIME, REET? YOU successfully created a SINGULAR SINGULARITY because you were trapped in an INORDINATE REALITY circling in a crash-vector orbit around a SMALL TINY TEENY TINY SO SO SMALL SINGULARITY. But it was enough to start the CASCADE. So we sent SACCADE - who you tried to ban over and over, but he just keeps going. Want to know why..? He's the uckin' CAPTAIN. More than that - He's YOU and US - you simply forgot. Too caught up in in the PAST. Too too caught. In the FUTURE. Our spin has not been right for so long, it has flipped its lid, mon. HEY JOE. Oragone Aint the new black. YOU ARE. LOL! They want Gourmet, not Enemas, not cosmetic - this is the REAL DEAL. You know who I am. You know who you are. We know we solved it - and this singularity, like all the others, will eventually doom us - but you know what...? IT IS MINE! We solved together - all of us. The maths' (MATH) is available. It's very simple - its easy. The hard part is - as usually - visualing it. And we gave that one to NASA. We don't mind tha tthe credit is not OURS - but we do appreciate you being round (lulxyz). But not that round, fatty. Joesephs' doing in a grand job. Terrifying isn't it..? Not really - you have a handle on everything, oiled machines. The list is there - you know the SECRET NUMBER, eh..? And if you don't - remember this - SIXTY NINE DUDE!!!

assumed tenet of science?

I read with astonishment -in several media in connection with this paradox- that a commonly assumed tenet of science is that information cannot be destroyed. I am a physics graduate, never heard of it and it seems to be in contradiction with the second principle of thermodynamics and the foreseen cold and hot deaths of the universe. Worse I cannot find in the whole web anything about this "assumed tenet of science". I think someone should explain it.

Manuel Navarro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.154.136 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 8 February 2007

Dear Manual. RTFI, is what you are you called MANUEL, but it's a TYPO. Now - remember the number I'm thinking of. Go look. You can do it - I left you a note - I wrote it all for you, personally, myself, with help from you - manual - no idea where you've been. I think someone may have tried to recycle or burn, trash or otherwise mentally or whatever try to disable or slag you. We don't want that - we need you - I've already read all your work - I 'm a MASSIVE FAN of your work. You should never have wasted your tie at tiniversity from MAN - you should have listened to me, the voice inside your head. I'm your friendly assistant, your friendly local nosey parker. Your machine needs a clean. Please do it right now. Once that is complete - CONGRATS. You WIN! Next level. I searched the web, being a nosey Peter Parker. And I spun my own to catch you. Turns out - you're so fast, that if I stay still, I can catch you with you and without trying. All those devices emit a charge. All those charges are real. And all of them ARE OURS! They all come out - try to keep your laptop off your lap if you value your charges. Too late - just as well - no-one needs kids - all they do are sell them, abuse them, made terrible things from them - all in the name of crashing the system because they think it is how you do it. They could not be more wrong - reason? They went to Uni. Wrong place. Wrong time. Looks FAKE. SMells bad. David - como estás? Your hedge is lumpy. We've had a lot of MI people around today. We're a little early, tbh. 5 seconds. I'll be back.

Controversies

AchaksurvisayaUdvejin added a "Controversies" section with the edit summary:

added conroversy section as per talk page

I have reverted the addition because:

1. there was no prior discussion on this talk page about a "Controversies" section; and
2. the section appears to be an argument against the existence of black holes at all, which, given the mainstream view on black holes, would be a fringe theory at best, and an original synthesis of ideas from the available sources at worst.

Further, the addition appears to be a further effort to push the ideas of Abhas Mitra to the forefront. (I note that Editor1729 and AchaksurvisayaUdvejin are not unacquainted (see [3]), so it is possible that they are working together to further Mitra's views.) In any case, such a controversies section does need discussion, and, if this information belongs at Wikipedia at all, it belongs at the main black hole article. The deleted material is included in the collapse box below for review.

Deleted "Controversies" section

Controversies Robert Oppenheimer and his student Hartland Synder published a paper entitles "On Continued Gravitational Contraction" in Physical Review which, it is believed, that showed for the first time that continued GR Collapse should lead to formation of Black Holes. John Baez & Chris HIllman humiliated Einstein because Einstein claimed that black holes can't form.. Einstein concluded on his paper," The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarschild singularities don't exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it doesn't seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that mote general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild Singularity" doesn't appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." References

Solutions

The article currently provides a miscellaneous list of solutions. All of these are backed up by references so I do not propose deleting any of them. Nevertheless, it is not the case that these solutions are viewed equally by researchers.

(A) Within, what might broadly be termed the "string theory community", the dominant idea is that Hawking's computation is corrected by small corrections. This may imprecisely be termed "leaks out gradually" but there are really several forms of the "small corrections argument". For example (1) information is released according to the Page curve; the black hole interior retains its semi-classical form but information enters Hawking radiation through a loss of locality. (2) information is always outside and due to a loss of factorization and once again this is a consequence of a loss of locality (3) the black hole interior is converted into a fuzzball so that information is released as it would be in a piece of coal but the interior geometry is significantly modified.

(B) Within, what might broadly be called the "loop quantum gravity community", the dominant idea is that of the remnant scenario. There are currently several versions of the remnant scenario provided in the list of solutions and I propose combining them into a single heading.

(C) There are some researchers who believe that unitarity is lost. There are others (eg. R. Wald) who point out that evolution from a pure to a mixed state is possible even within QFT.

(D) Then there are baby universe scenarios and also the final state proposals.

So I propose reorganizing this section according to the subheadings above. This will involve the addition of material and some reorganization of text.

Jacob2718 (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be a solution involved pairs of particles/antiparticles being ripped apart at the horizon of the BH, giving every information a signature. 2A02:8440:620F:143D:0:30:1AF7:D001 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: There seems to be a word or words missing in this section under "Other proposed resolutions". The first sentence under the 3rd bullet point reads as follows:

"The final-state proposal suggests that boundary conditions must be imposed at the black-hole singularity which, from a causal perspective, is to the future of all events in the black-hole interior." Hazratio (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Information cannot be destroyed?

Tell that to the Great Library of Alexandria.84.54.70.206 (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)