Is information ever actually lost in a black hole?

[paddoboy]

Lo, this man is irrepressible.

Irrepressible maybe, but at least honest.

Me and half hearted apology ? What a pathetic liar you are, not worthy of any kind of engagement.

Sure......

The God:

Did PhysBang claim to have a PhD?
Do you have evidence that he does not have one?

Please contact me by private messaging to provide me with the details of this lie you allege. We have a site policy against knowingly telling lies, and if you wish I will enforce it in this case to officially warn either you or PhysBang - whoever is lying about this.

Is this acceptable to you? Or do you want to retract your accusation of lying?

I will surely, but why don't you look at the way...Physbang is calling me liar in unrelated threads and posts, he is calling danshaven as liar and as 'danthecrank', he is calling farsight as liar and asshole without provocation.

and then comes the squirming and whimpering in raising other trolls that have been less than honest.

 

[The God]

Irrepressible maybe, but at least honest.

Sure......


and then comes the squirming and whimpering in raising other trolls that have been less than honest.

Wow, you are too good, what a definition you have given of half hearted apology ? I am siting at 45 points, otherwise I would have used around 20-30 points to tell you what ...............you are.

 

[paddoboy]

Oopsy daisy! wrong thread!

 

[QuarkHead]

Speaking as a non-physicist, let me see if I have this correct.

Black Holes have only 3 known properties - mass, charge and angular momentum. Is this correct?

There appears to be a theory of J.A. Wheeler that states whatever additional properties may be possessed by an object outside a Black Hole, once it is absorbed (by "falling in"), all properties other than mass, charge and angular momentum are lost (since it is now part of the Black Hole).
-
I believe this is called the "no hair" theorem.

Now, if one defines a "property" by a yes-no answer to some specific request for information about an object outside a Black Hole, then the no hair theorem says that yes, information is lost.

Note this has nothing to do with the ability to transmit information across the so-called event horizon - it is simply an argument of principle.

Is this gibberish?

 

[arfa brane]

To reiterate what pryk posted

. . . if the material entering the black hole were a pure quantum state, the transformation of that state into the mixed state of Hawking radiation would destroy information about the original quantum state. This violates Liouville's theorem and presents a physical paradox.[citation needed]
More precisely, if there is an entangled pure state, and one part of the entangled system is thrown into the black hole while keeping the other part outside, the result is a mixed state after the partial trace is taken into the interior of the black hole. But since everything within the interior of the black hole will hit the singularity within a finite time, the part which is traced over partially might disappear completely from the physical system.[citation needed]

. . . which would violate unitarity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

 

[brucep]

Speaking as a non-physicist, let me see if I have this correct.

Black Holes have only 3 known properties - mass, charge and angular momentum. Is this correct?

There appears to be a theory of J.A. Wheeler that states whatever additional properties may be possessed by an object outside a Black Hole, once it is absorbed (by "falling in"), all properties other than mass, charge and angular momentum are lost (since it is now part of the Black Hole).
-
I believe this is called the "no hair" theorem.

Now, if one defines a "property" by a yes-no answer to some specific request for information about an object outside a Black Hole, then the no hair theorem says that yes, information is lost.

Note this has nothing to do with the ability to transmit information across the so-called event horizon - it is simply an argument of principle.

Is this gibberish?

No it's not gibberish based on the domain of the theoretical model being used for the analysis. That's the classical analysis of GR. Stuff falls into the whole but the hole remains with the information inside? GR doesn't predict the whole will eventually evaporate and radiate everything that fell in away in a thermal black body spectrum. Hawkings prediction of Hawking radiation is the avenue for information loss. It's thermal radiation and it can no longer describe what it was when it fell into the hole. That's why there is an information paradox and why we have some interesting proposals to explain why the information isn't actually lost. The latest one by Hawking uses the holographic principal in a different way than t'Hooft. I think I linked both papers earlier in the thread. This is about quantum gravity a domain GR doesn't address.