# Is information ever actually lost in a black hole?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by RJBeery, Jan 20, 2016.

1. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
27,534
No, my dear friend, it is fact based on our current knowledge and the application of FoR's which you so ignorantly ignore.
Let me again correct you on other facts.
Time nor light is ever seen to be stopped, in any FoR.
From the local frame, time proceeds as per normal and anyone will fall in and cross the EH to their inevitable doom, including photons of light, except of course if that photon should be emitted directly radially away, in which case it will seem to hover at the one spot for eternity.Imagine a fish swimming at 10kms/hr upstream against a current of 10kms/hr.
From any remote distant FoR, light and any object will be gradually red shifted to infinity and gradually disappear from view, but are never actually seen to cross the EH, nor stop.
That's the way the cookie crumbles Farsight.

to hide all adverts.
3. ### BruinthorRegistered Member

Messages:
37
I submit a simplified version of the information paradox. Assume a black hole has formed, the matter that formed it will according to the standard model have a definite baryon number and lepton number (anti-matter being a typically minuscule component). Assume also the black hole is not the whole of the universe: the energy of the black must be less than the rest mass of the baryons and leptons that went into creating it. In relativity special or general this is what is meant by a particle being bound (in GR this does require defining a particular reference frame). If a particles energy is greater than its rest mass it will escape to infinity.
Assume that Hawking radiation is depleting the black hole energy, first photons then neutrinos then electrons, muons, etc. As the black hole shrinks and gets hotter we must eventually emit protons at which point we have a problem because there is insufficient energy to create the number of baryons that went into creating the black hole.

Last edited: Jan 26, 2016

to hide all adverts.
5. ### expletives deletedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
410
On the OP issue, I have a question and opinion in one: Isn't Information an abstract concept strictly for application in computational and mathematical systems of logics and design of information processing methods and techniques?

My argument in support, based on my own understandings only: In LHC, the inputs are amorphous magnetic energies which, when combined with the kinetic energies of the accelerated particles at point of collision, become even more amorphous to the point of producing a dissociated soup of energy quantity which immediately jets out and expands in various turbulent and incoherent perturbations which eventually reform randomly to various products which may or may not reproduce exactly the forms of energy and particles input to that collision. The experimenters cannot in my opinion know exactly the total amount of energies going into a collisions, so no proper information content could be inferred even if we wanted to. Then the totality of particle zoo and free energy forms which exit will have different information from what went into the collision. By analogy, any energy or matter going into a BH will not necessarily have any information content going in or coming out if the particles are spaghettified and free energy is all that results; which free energy may reform into randomly different forms/particles via Hawking Radiation or other energy or mass loss mechanism applies; so making the concept of Information a purely arbitrary man made concept which nature need not follow because it converts matter to energy both bound and free, and back again in many ways (such as in LHC) which have no regard for any information quotient which an observer wants to ascribe to what is being converted in random and unpredictable ways which bear no relation to what was the starting condition of the energy or particles undergoing conversion.

On the OP issue: I can only say that the issue is not a physical one but a philosophical one; and that it makes no difference to what happens at a BH event horizon or below it because it's all spaghettified and scrambled and will be in variously different forms than it was going in, if or when it ever emerges again.

I hope my opinion doesn't offend anyone. It is only my opinion. Thanks.

to hide all adverts.
7. ### BruinthorRegistered Member

Messages:
37
spaghettification at the event horizon is not a given: for a solar mass BH the tidal acceleration is indeed tremendous 5 x10^9/s^2 but this drops as the square of the mass: for a million solar mass BH it is only .005/s^2

I agree that the question has become largely philosophical but in the context in which it originally posed it did have a speculative physical basis.

Last edited: Jan 26, 2016
8. ### expletives deletedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
410
Thanks, Bruinthor. I was aware of that. Which is why I said both at and below the EH; which includes the case where in falling matter encounters either an extended central feature and is splattered into amorphous state on its surface, or, encounters the mathematically extrapolated central singularity feature and is likewise converted to whatever states that concept allows. In either case, the in falling energy or particle is no longer the carrier of Information as conceived of by mathematical and computational theory. Which makes the OP issue a philosophical one or a mathematical one, but not a physical one since nature randomizes Information in that way I described in those cases; and in LHC collision energy is not known to precise degree once the amorphous state of the mini fireball is formed; and then the ejecta from that collision is reformed randomly to new particles with no memory of whatever energy quantity was involved going in. No Information calculation or equation is possible for such physical Randomizing events and processes.

My opinion: Information is purely mathematical and computational concepts applicable only in those fields, not physical theory.

I found your own post about the energy discrepancy complications involved in BH scenario you mention quite plausible. Very interesting; it gave me something else to think about. Thanks.

Last edited: Jan 26, 2016
9. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
27,534
As you have been informed, spaghettification is not a given either on or this side of the EH, but will certainly occur for any massive body on its one way trip to the Singularity. Worth noting of course that the extreme effects of tidal gravitation, will on that inexorable path to the singularity, overcome all other forces including the strong nuclear force.
We are also reasonably logically able to discuss the properties of the spacetime inside the EH and also the Singularity/mass. eg: If we are able to observe an Ergosphere, [frame dragging] we can reasonably assume that it is caused by a rotating BH called a Kerr BH.

10. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
27,534
In your opinion?? So, why should your opinion be listened to over recognised professional experts who actually work on the fantastic piece of machinery?

Messages:
27,534
12. ### expletives deletedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
410
As a member here, I have a right to make my opinion and supporting argument on the OP issue. I have done both. Whether anyone listens to my opinion and argument at all is not my problem and not my demand. Nor have I claimed that my opinion should "be listened to over recognized professional experts"; that is your falsely imputed claim, not mine. I would appreciate it if you stopped creating false impressions about me or my posts. If you are looking to manufacture excuses for manufacturing conflict, don't. I made no claims. Nor have I demanded you or anyone else take my opinion and argument other than as an opinion and argument validly posted as a member here, on-topic and directed at the OP and not you. Thanks in advance for not doing that again.

Messages:
27,534

14. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
27,534
1. Black Hole Information Paradox: An Introduction
This article represents a lightning introduction to the black hole information paradox. Many details are omitted for brevity; longer articles will (eventually) explain them. Also, caution! the current understanding of the problem is so confused that the very last portion of this article should not be considered reliable or stable — it is likely to change in future.

[I thank Professor Joe Polchinski for consultations on the physics and for checking my illustrations for errors.]

The Two Conflicting Theories:

Quantum Theory (sometimes called “Quantum Mechanics”) is the mathematics that is currently believed to underlie all physical processes in nature. It can’t be used to predict precisely what will happen, but only the probability for any particular thing to happen. But probabilities only make sense if, when you add up all the probabilities for all of the different things that can possibly happen, you find the sum is equal to one. A quantum theory where this isn’t true makes no sense. One consequence of this is that in a quantum theory, information is never truly lost, nor is it truly copied; at least in principle, you can always determine how a system started (its “initial state”) from complete information about how it ends (its “final state”). See Figure 1, which shows two particles colliding, and several particles exiting from the collision, carrying off, in scrambled form, the information about the nature and properties of the two initial particles.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fig. 1: In any type of quantum theory, information that goes in must come back out, scrambled but complete.

General Relativity is the name for Einstein’s theory of gravity, in which gravity can be thought of as an effect of the warping of space and time. General relativity is not a quantum theory; it predicts exactly what happens, not probabilities for various things to happen.
more......................

File size:
3.9 KB
Views:
2
15. ### expletives deletedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
410
Note that quantum theory is a statistical technique which assumes that the probabilities are all as theorized. But on the actual information aspect, it is an assumption that such hypothesized information exists to be conserved or lost. The way to understand this is that information is whatever one arbitrarily defines as information in a theory, be it quantum theory of other. In the case of real high energy events which may irretrievably scramble input energies and particles, whatever their theorized information content, into a fundamental soup of amorphous probabilities of output forms and states, there is no direct memory connection between any theorized information input and theorized information in the output products which may have lost some information to the underlying spacetime fabric or the surrounding electro-mechanical systems which create and control the accelerating energies and beams. Your claim that the energies of a particular collision event are known precisely (and hence could be correlated with the theorized information content associated with those energies) fails to take into account that while the range of operating energies for the beams is known to within some approximate operational range values, the actual particle-particle collision energies of a particular event among many are not precisely knowable due to many glancing and other energetic quantum variability and uncertainties at that scale. In any case the randomized jets and products bear no direct relation to any information carrying though the collision event, since the products of collision vary from collision to collision; which is why they have to create so many collisions to get a statistical picture to correlate and compare such statistical signals to the theorized expectations of what should have been produced. Nowhere along the process at the LHC does the information content have any bearing on what is produced, so no assumptions can be made about conservation of information and the like. Such things are theoretical statistical concepts and laws convenient in mathematical and computational applications and technique, but do not represent actual physical quantities in products content emerging from a randomized high energy reformation of input energy to output energy in various forms which may differ from the input forms as to number and properties (which is why we are looking for LHC micro black holes, more higgs bosons and so on to explain the theory by trying to identify the nature and properties of any missing energy in the output from the collisions). That is my understanding and opinion only. I will be more than happy to be corrected by any learned persons in this matter.

Last edited: Jan 26, 2016
16. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
27,534
An assumption by expert from a reputable link, not an amateur lay person .,,LHC no less.
If I need help to understand this, I'll get it from the experts thank you very much.
Please do not accuse me of making any claim which I did not. I gave an appropriate reputable link with expert opinion, as differing from unsupported opinions by lay people.

Again, I have given a reputable link from the LHC site itself, and that certainly trumps any opinion from a lay person.

Messages:
27,534
18. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
27,534
You have at least two reputable links that give a far more realistic uncluttered understanding of what goes on. You did say you were here to learn, did you not? Well learn.

19. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
27,534
http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2015/11/lhc-collides-ions-new-record-energy
The LHC collides ions at new record energy

Geneva, 25 November 2015. After the successful restart of the Large Hadron Collider and its first months of data taking with proton collisions at a new energy frontier, the LHC is moving to a new phase, with the first lead-ion collisions of season 2 at an energy about twice as high as that of any previous collider experiment. Following a period of intense activity to re-configure the LHC and its chain of accelerators for heavy ion beams, CERN1’s accelerator specialists put the beams into collision for the first time in the early morning of 17 November 2015 and ‘stable beams’ were declared at 10.59am today, marking the start of a one-month run with positively charged lead ions: lead atoms stripped of electrons. The four large LHC experiments will all take data over this campaign, including LHCb, which will record this kind of collision for the first time. Colliding lead ions allows the LHC experiments to study a state of matter that existed shortly after the big bang, reaching a temperature of several trillion degrees.

“It is a tradition to collide ions over one month every year as part of our diverse research programme at the LHC,” said CERN Director General Rolf Heuer. “This year however is special as we reach a new energy and will explore matter at an even earlier stage of our universe.”

Early in the life of our universe, for a few millionths of a second, matter was a very hot and very dense medium – a kind of primordial ‘soup’ of particles, mainly composed of fundamental particles known as quarks and gluons. In today’s cold Universe, the gluons “glue” quarks together into the protons and neutrons that form bulk matter, including us, as well as other kinds of particles.

There are many very dense and very hot questions to be addressed with the ion run for which our experiment was specifically designed and further improved during the shutdown,”said ALICE collaboration spokesperson Paolo Giubellino. “For instance, we are eager to learn how the increase in energy will affect charmonium production, and to probe heavy flavour and jet quenching with higher statistics. The whole collaboration is enthusiastically preparing for a new journey of discovery.”

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Collision between lead ions seen within the ALICE detector (Image: ALICE ©CERN)

Increasing the energy of collisions will increase the volume and the temperature of the quark and gluon plasma, allowing for significant advances in understanding the strongly-interacting medium formed in lead-ion collisions at the LHC. As an example, in season 1 the LHC experiments confirmed the perfect liquid nature of the quark-gluon plasma and the existence of “jet quenching” in ion collisions, a phenomenon in which generated particles lose energy through the quark-gluon plasma. The high abundance of such phenomena will provide the experiments with tools to characterize the behaviour of this quark-gluon plasma. Measurements to higher jet energies will thus allow new and more detailed characterization of this very interesting state of matter.

The heavy-ion run will provide a great complement to the proton-proton data we've taken this year," said ATLAS collaboration spokesperson Dave Charlton. "We are looking forward to extending ATLAS' studies of how energetic objects such as jets and W and Z bosons behave in the quark gluon plasma.”

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Collision between lead ions seen within the ATLAS detector (Image: ATLAS ©CERN)

The LHC detectors were substantially improved during the LHC’s first long shutdown. With higher statistics expected, physicists will be able to look deeper at the tantalising signals observed in season 1.

"Heavy flavour particles will be produced at high rate in Season 2, opening up unprecedented opportunities to study hadronic matter in extreme conditions,” said CMS collaboration spokesperson Tiziano Camporesi. « CMS is ideally suited to trigger on these rare probes and to measure them with high precision. »

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Collision between lead ions seen within the CMS detector (Image: CMS ©CERN)

For the very first time, the LHCb collaboration will join the club of experiments taking data with ion-ion collisions.

"This is an exciting step into the unknown for LHCb, which has very precise particle identification capabilities. Our detector will enable us to perform measurements that are highly complementary to those of our friends elsewhere around the ring,”said LHCb collaboration spokesperson Guy Wilkinson.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Collision between lead ions seen within the LHCb detector (Image: LHCb ©CERN)

20. ### expletives deletedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
410
Please re read my post you have responded to above, as I was editing it while you were responding. In particular note the changes to the second sentence which corrected a typo of omission in the first draft. The rest is what it is. I am open to learned members checking for and correcting my opinion or my understandings on which that opinion is based. You may do what you wish with what information you like to post. I have no more to add in the matter. Thanks.

21. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
27,534
Not really interested as I have given the official accepted expert link on the matter and this is the science section.
That's what's accepted, that's what goes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

22. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
27,534
Here's another on collision energies and such.........
http://cds.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2015/49/News Articles/2105084

LEAD-ION COLLISIONS: THE LHC ACHIEVES A NEW ENERGY RECORD
After the Bevatron (Berkeley, 1954) – which broke the energy barrier of billions of electronvolts – and the Tevatron (Fermilab, 1987) – which reached a trillion electronvolts – the LHC is now reaching the peta- (quadrillion) electronvolt level with its heavy-ion collisions (see here). However, one should remember that the average energy per colliding nucleon pair, within the 1 PeV “fireball”, is 5 TeV (compared to 13 TeV in the recent proton-proton collisions).

Two of the great particle accelerators of the past were named after the symbolic energy barrier that they broke. The Bevatron (for "billions of electronvolts synchrotron"), at Berkeley in 1954, was the first to break the barrier of a billion electronvolts or BeV (now known as a gigaelectronvolt or GeV) in the centre-of-mass, by a large enough margin to create the laboratory’s first anti-protons. Three decades later, in 1987, the Tevatron at Fermilab breached the barrier of 1 teraelectron volt or TeV, a trillion electron volts or 1000 GeV, at the centre-of-mass. The Tevatron beam energy itself was almost 1 TeV, yielding almost 2 TeV in the collisions of opposing beams.

Just under three decades since the Tevatron reached 1 TeV, the LHC has resumed its programme of colliding lead nuclei at a new energy, enabled by the work done on the LHC during Long Shutdown 1. The total centre-of-mass energy in the collisions will be 1045 TeV, breaking the symbolic barrier of a quadrillion electronvolts, or 1 PeV (petaelectron volt). However, the lead isotope accelerated in the LHC contains, besides its 82 protons, 126 neutrons that have no electric charge for the accelerating fields to work on. So, the total energy of the nucleus is shared among 208 nucleons, each of which has 82/208 or 39.4% of the energy that the LHC imparts to single protons. In nuclear physics literature, it is customary to quote the average centre-of-mass energy of pairs of colliding nucleons, which will be 5.02 TeV.

On the other hand, with all due respect to our colleagues in the experiments, this convention is a perennial nuisance in accelerator physics, where we consider the dynamics of particles to be based on a certain mass, charge and energy and the “energy per nucleon” does not appear naturally in the equations. Observant watchers of the “LHC Page 1” display will have noticed a “Z” inserted into the beam energy value to take care of this (the preceding number being the energy per charge which is the same as for protons). The same display worked neatly for both beams when we collided protons with lead in 2012 and 2013.

The SPS, for its part, has been sending lead ions at 36.9 TeV (or 177 GeV per nucleon) to the LHC and to fixed target experiments for many years.

From the perspective of the early 1950s, the energies attained by the Tevatron and the LHC would have seemed like science fiction. But thanks to breakthroughs in accelerator physics and technology in subsequent decades, they are now real. In the case of the LHC’s heavy-ion collisions, the concentration of so much energy into the tiny nuclear volume is enough to create huge particle densities and temperatures about a quarter of a million times greater than those at the core of the Sun. In this way, heavy-ion collisions recreate the quark-gluon plasma, the extreme state of matter that is thought to have filled the universe when it was only microseconds old. The LHC experiments study the collective behaviour of quarks and gluons when they form this state.

Therefore, although we are far from having the capability to collide single protons at 1 PeV (the “Pevatron” perhaps?), we can still celebrate the breaking of a new symbolic energy barrier.

23. ### expletives deletedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
410
If you're not really interested in getting the corrected post on the matter in question, then why engage me at all in the first place? And why bother posting all that well known gumph instead of addressing the points raised in by me in defense of my opinion and understandings of the issue of information and the LHC collisions analysis and so on. Unless your wall of text actually addresses and corrects the actual points raised by me in my post, your posting that wall of text is pure waste of everybody's time. If you are not going to defend your own claims other than by posting cut and pasted walls of text from outside sources, then I would appreciate it if you did not engage me in future unless you have a defense of your own claims and criticisms with your own details and not imported walls of text which may or may not be to the points raised that you need to address specifically not nebulously with beside the point verbiage harvested blindly from someone else. Thanks.