Why is the information paradox restricted to black holes?












2














I am reading Hawking's "Brief answers". He complained that black holes destroy information (and was trying to find a way to avoid this). What I don't understand: Isn't deleting information quite a normal process? Doesn't burning a written letter or deleting a hard disk accomplish the same?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    2














    I am reading Hawking's "Brief answers". He complained that black holes destroy information (and was trying to find a way to avoid this). What I don't understand: Isn't deleting information quite a normal process? Doesn't burning a written letter or deleting a hard disk accomplish the same?










    share|cite|improve this question









    New contributor




    Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      2












      2








      2


      1





      I am reading Hawking's "Brief answers". He complained that black holes destroy information (and was trying to find a way to avoid this). What I don't understand: Isn't deleting information quite a normal process? Doesn't burning a written letter or deleting a hard disk accomplish the same?










      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      I am reading Hawking's "Brief answers". He complained that black holes destroy information (and was trying to find a way to avoid this). What I don't understand: Isn't deleting information quite a normal process? Doesn't burning a written letter or deleting a hard disk accomplish the same?







      thermodynamics black-holes information hawking-radiation unitarity






      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago









      Qmechanic

      101k121831141




      101k121831141






      New contributor




      Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 2 hours ago









      Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik

      111




      111




      New contributor




      Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          (The answers by Mark H and B.fox were posted while this one was being written. This answer says the same thing in different words, but I went ahead and posted it anyway because sometimes saying the same thing in different words can be helpful.)



          The key is to appreciate the difference between losing information in practice and losing information in principle.



          If you write "My password is 12345" on a piece of paper an then burn it, the information might be lost for all practical purposes, but that doesn't mean that the information is lost in principle. To see the difference, compare these two scenarios:




          • Scenario 1: You write "My password is 12345" on a piece of paper an then burn it.


          • Scenario 2: You write "My password is ABCDE" on a piece of paper an then burn it.



          Exactly what happens in either scenario depends on many details, like the specific arrangement of molecules in the piece of paper and the ink, the specific details of the flame that was used to ignite the paper, the specific arrangement of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere near the burning paper, etc, etc, etc. The variety of possible outcomes is equally vast, with possible outcomes differing from each other in the specific details of which parts of the paper ended up as which pieces of ash, which molecules ended up getting oxidized and drifting in such-and-such a direction, etc, etc, etc. This is why the information is lost in practice.



          However, according to the laws of physics as we understand them today, all of the physically possible outcomes in Scenario 1 are different than all of the physically possible outcomes in Scenario 2. There is no way to start with a piece of paper that says "My password is 12345" and end up with precisely the same final state (at the molecular level) as if the piece of paper had said "My password is ABCDE." In this sense, the information is not lost in principle.



          In other words, the laws of physics as we understand them today are reversible in principle, even though they are not reversible in practice. This is one of the key ideas behind how the second law of thermodynamics is derived from statistical mechanics.



          The black hole information paradox says that in the case of a black hole says that our current understanding of physics is necessarily flawed. Either information really is lost in principle when a black hole evaporates, or else spacetime as we know it is only an approximately-valid concept that fails in this case, or else some other equally drastic thing. I think it's important to appreciate that the black hole information paradox is not obvious to most people (certainly not to me, and maybe not to anybody). As a testament to just how non-obvious it is, here are a few review papers mostly written for an audience who already understands both general relativity and quantum field theory:



          [1] Marolf (2017), “The Black Hole information problem: past, present, and future,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02143



          [2] Polchinski (2016), “The Black Hole Information Problem,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04036



          [3] Harlow (2014), “Jerusalem Lectures on Black Holes and Quantum Information,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1231



          [4] Mathur (2011), “What the information paradox is not,” http: //arxiv.org/abs/1108.0302



          [5] Mathur (2009), “The information paradox: A pedagogical intro- duction,” http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1038



          Section 2 in [1] says:




          conventional physics implies the Hawking effect to differ fundamentally from familiar thermal emission from hot objects like stars or burning wood. To explain this difference, ... [technical details]




          Section 4.2 in [2] says:




          The burning scrambles any initial information, making it hard to decode, but it is reversible in principle. ... A common initial reaction to Hawking’s claim is that a black hole should be like any other thermal system... But there is a difference: the coal has no horizon. The early photons from the coal are entangled with excitations inside, but the latter can imprint their quantum state onto later outgoing photons. With the black hole, the internal excitations are behind the horizon, and cannot influence the state of later photons.




          The point of listing these references/excerpts is simply to say that the paradox is not obvious.



          The point of this answer is mainly to say that burning a letter or deleting a hard disk are reversible in principle (no information loss in principle) even though they make the information practically inaccessible, because reconstructing the original message from its ashes (and infrared radiation that has escaped to space, and molecules that have dissipated into the atmosphere, etc, etc, etc) is prohibitively difficult, to say the least.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I am sceptic against "in principle". When trying to measure the tiny differences between the ashes of 12345 and ABCDE there are necessarily position and momentum of many particles involved. Measurement of one of them could prevent measurement of another one.
            – Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik
            33 mins ago










          • @IbrahimAbdelFaruk-Shaik Your comment raises a very good point. When we say that the laws of physics as we currently know them are "reversible", we are ignoring the infamous measurement problem of quantum physics. Since we don't know how to resolve that, either, I suppose we should remain open to the possibility that the black hole information paradox and the measurement problem might be related in some yet-undiscovered way; but such a connection is not currently clear.
            – Dan Yand
            28 mins ago



















          1














          When Dr. Hawking talks about information being destroyed, he is talking about the erasure of all evidence that the information ever existed. In the case of burning a written letter, you could track the trajectory and composition of every smoke particle as the book burned. Since ink and paper generate different kinds of smoke and start at different locations, you could use that information to reconstruct the original book.



          Obviously, this is impossible to do in real life, but the information is there to be had. In the same way that energy is neither created nor destroyed, information is neither created nor destroyed. This is why Hawking was suspicious about black holes seeming to retain no evidence of what fell into them.






          share|cite|improve this answer





























            0














            I must admit, I'm not the most qualified person to answer here.



            If you place the burning letter into a sealed box (a closed system) and allow the system to carry itself to its final state, with a perfect model of the physics involved, you can trace the end state back to its original state if you know the properties of the end state perfectly because the constituent particles of the letter carry with them information regarding their previous interactions. That information is preserved in the system, and can be decoded.



            If you place a black hole in a box and some in-falling matter, information will be lost behind the horizon, permanently so once the black hole evaporates.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • the information paradox is not that the information is trapped behind the horizon, it is about its destruction when the Hawking radiation radiates away the black hole while not containing any information itself. the fact that the information is simply inaccessible to the outside observer is not a paradox in itself.
              – Симон Тыран
              42 mins ago












            • @СимонТыран Hence my first statement. When the black hole finally evaporates—when it reaches its "end state"—all information behind its horizon will be destroyed. That's more or less my point behind "lost behind the horizon." The OP had also asked why burning a letter with written information did not owe anything to the information paradox, which was more what my answer was geared toward.
              – B.fox
              32 mins ago











            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "151"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });






            Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f450326%2fwhy-is-the-information-paradox-restricted-to-black-holes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            3














            (The answers by Mark H and B.fox were posted while this one was being written. This answer says the same thing in different words, but I went ahead and posted it anyway because sometimes saying the same thing in different words can be helpful.)



            The key is to appreciate the difference between losing information in practice and losing information in principle.



            If you write "My password is 12345" on a piece of paper an then burn it, the information might be lost for all practical purposes, but that doesn't mean that the information is lost in principle. To see the difference, compare these two scenarios:




            • Scenario 1: You write "My password is 12345" on a piece of paper an then burn it.


            • Scenario 2: You write "My password is ABCDE" on a piece of paper an then burn it.



            Exactly what happens in either scenario depends on many details, like the specific arrangement of molecules in the piece of paper and the ink, the specific details of the flame that was used to ignite the paper, the specific arrangement of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere near the burning paper, etc, etc, etc. The variety of possible outcomes is equally vast, with possible outcomes differing from each other in the specific details of which parts of the paper ended up as which pieces of ash, which molecules ended up getting oxidized and drifting in such-and-such a direction, etc, etc, etc. This is why the information is lost in practice.



            However, according to the laws of physics as we understand them today, all of the physically possible outcomes in Scenario 1 are different than all of the physically possible outcomes in Scenario 2. There is no way to start with a piece of paper that says "My password is 12345" and end up with precisely the same final state (at the molecular level) as if the piece of paper had said "My password is ABCDE." In this sense, the information is not lost in principle.



            In other words, the laws of physics as we understand them today are reversible in principle, even though they are not reversible in practice. This is one of the key ideas behind how the second law of thermodynamics is derived from statistical mechanics.



            The black hole information paradox says that in the case of a black hole says that our current understanding of physics is necessarily flawed. Either information really is lost in principle when a black hole evaporates, or else spacetime as we know it is only an approximately-valid concept that fails in this case, or else some other equally drastic thing. I think it's important to appreciate that the black hole information paradox is not obvious to most people (certainly not to me, and maybe not to anybody). As a testament to just how non-obvious it is, here are a few review papers mostly written for an audience who already understands both general relativity and quantum field theory:



            [1] Marolf (2017), “The Black Hole information problem: past, present, and future,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02143



            [2] Polchinski (2016), “The Black Hole Information Problem,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04036



            [3] Harlow (2014), “Jerusalem Lectures on Black Holes and Quantum Information,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1231



            [4] Mathur (2011), “What the information paradox is not,” http: //arxiv.org/abs/1108.0302



            [5] Mathur (2009), “The information paradox: A pedagogical intro- duction,” http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1038



            Section 2 in [1] says:




            conventional physics implies the Hawking effect to differ fundamentally from familiar thermal emission from hot objects like stars or burning wood. To explain this difference, ... [technical details]




            Section 4.2 in [2] says:




            The burning scrambles any initial information, making it hard to decode, but it is reversible in principle. ... A common initial reaction to Hawking’s claim is that a black hole should be like any other thermal system... But there is a difference: the coal has no horizon. The early photons from the coal are entangled with excitations inside, but the latter can imprint their quantum state onto later outgoing photons. With the black hole, the internal excitations are behind the horizon, and cannot influence the state of later photons.




            The point of listing these references/excerpts is simply to say that the paradox is not obvious.



            The point of this answer is mainly to say that burning a letter or deleting a hard disk are reversible in principle (no information loss in principle) even though they make the information practically inaccessible, because reconstructing the original message from its ashes (and infrared radiation that has escaped to space, and molecules that have dissipated into the atmosphere, etc, etc, etc) is prohibitively difficult, to say the least.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • I am sceptic against "in principle". When trying to measure the tiny differences between the ashes of 12345 and ABCDE there are necessarily position and momentum of many particles involved. Measurement of one of them could prevent measurement of another one.
              – Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik
              33 mins ago










            • @IbrahimAbdelFaruk-Shaik Your comment raises a very good point. When we say that the laws of physics as we currently know them are "reversible", we are ignoring the infamous measurement problem of quantum physics. Since we don't know how to resolve that, either, I suppose we should remain open to the possibility that the black hole information paradox and the measurement problem might be related in some yet-undiscovered way; but such a connection is not currently clear.
              – Dan Yand
              28 mins ago
















            3














            (The answers by Mark H and B.fox were posted while this one was being written. This answer says the same thing in different words, but I went ahead and posted it anyway because sometimes saying the same thing in different words can be helpful.)



            The key is to appreciate the difference between losing information in practice and losing information in principle.



            If you write "My password is 12345" on a piece of paper an then burn it, the information might be lost for all practical purposes, but that doesn't mean that the information is lost in principle. To see the difference, compare these two scenarios:




            • Scenario 1: You write "My password is 12345" on a piece of paper an then burn it.


            • Scenario 2: You write "My password is ABCDE" on a piece of paper an then burn it.



            Exactly what happens in either scenario depends on many details, like the specific arrangement of molecules in the piece of paper and the ink, the specific details of the flame that was used to ignite the paper, the specific arrangement of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere near the burning paper, etc, etc, etc. The variety of possible outcomes is equally vast, with possible outcomes differing from each other in the specific details of which parts of the paper ended up as which pieces of ash, which molecules ended up getting oxidized and drifting in such-and-such a direction, etc, etc, etc. This is why the information is lost in practice.



            However, according to the laws of physics as we understand them today, all of the physically possible outcomes in Scenario 1 are different than all of the physically possible outcomes in Scenario 2. There is no way to start with a piece of paper that says "My password is 12345" and end up with precisely the same final state (at the molecular level) as if the piece of paper had said "My password is ABCDE." In this sense, the information is not lost in principle.



            In other words, the laws of physics as we understand them today are reversible in principle, even though they are not reversible in practice. This is one of the key ideas behind how the second law of thermodynamics is derived from statistical mechanics.



            The black hole information paradox says that in the case of a black hole says that our current understanding of physics is necessarily flawed. Either information really is lost in principle when a black hole evaporates, or else spacetime as we know it is only an approximately-valid concept that fails in this case, or else some other equally drastic thing. I think it's important to appreciate that the black hole information paradox is not obvious to most people (certainly not to me, and maybe not to anybody). As a testament to just how non-obvious it is, here are a few review papers mostly written for an audience who already understands both general relativity and quantum field theory:



            [1] Marolf (2017), “The Black Hole information problem: past, present, and future,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02143



            [2] Polchinski (2016), “The Black Hole Information Problem,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04036



            [3] Harlow (2014), “Jerusalem Lectures on Black Holes and Quantum Information,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1231



            [4] Mathur (2011), “What the information paradox is not,” http: //arxiv.org/abs/1108.0302



            [5] Mathur (2009), “The information paradox: A pedagogical intro- duction,” http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1038



            Section 2 in [1] says:




            conventional physics implies the Hawking effect to differ fundamentally from familiar thermal emission from hot objects like stars or burning wood. To explain this difference, ... [technical details]




            Section 4.2 in [2] says:




            The burning scrambles any initial information, making it hard to decode, but it is reversible in principle. ... A common initial reaction to Hawking’s claim is that a black hole should be like any other thermal system... But there is a difference: the coal has no horizon. The early photons from the coal are entangled with excitations inside, but the latter can imprint their quantum state onto later outgoing photons. With the black hole, the internal excitations are behind the horizon, and cannot influence the state of later photons.




            The point of listing these references/excerpts is simply to say that the paradox is not obvious.



            The point of this answer is mainly to say that burning a letter or deleting a hard disk are reversible in principle (no information loss in principle) even though they make the information practically inaccessible, because reconstructing the original message from its ashes (and infrared radiation that has escaped to space, and molecules that have dissipated into the atmosphere, etc, etc, etc) is prohibitively difficult, to say the least.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • I am sceptic against "in principle". When trying to measure the tiny differences between the ashes of 12345 and ABCDE there are necessarily position and momentum of many particles involved. Measurement of one of them could prevent measurement of another one.
              – Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik
              33 mins ago










            • @IbrahimAbdelFaruk-Shaik Your comment raises a very good point. When we say that the laws of physics as we currently know them are "reversible", we are ignoring the infamous measurement problem of quantum physics. Since we don't know how to resolve that, either, I suppose we should remain open to the possibility that the black hole information paradox and the measurement problem might be related in some yet-undiscovered way; but such a connection is not currently clear.
              – Dan Yand
              28 mins ago














            3












            3








            3






            (The answers by Mark H and B.fox were posted while this one was being written. This answer says the same thing in different words, but I went ahead and posted it anyway because sometimes saying the same thing in different words can be helpful.)



            The key is to appreciate the difference between losing information in practice and losing information in principle.



            If you write "My password is 12345" on a piece of paper an then burn it, the information might be lost for all practical purposes, but that doesn't mean that the information is lost in principle. To see the difference, compare these two scenarios:




            • Scenario 1: You write "My password is 12345" on a piece of paper an then burn it.


            • Scenario 2: You write "My password is ABCDE" on a piece of paper an then burn it.



            Exactly what happens in either scenario depends on many details, like the specific arrangement of molecules in the piece of paper and the ink, the specific details of the flame that was used to ignite the paper, the specific arrangement of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere near the burning paper, etc, etc, etc. The variety of possible outcomes is equally vast, with possible outcomes differing from each other in the specific details of which parts of the paper ended up as which pieces of ash, which molecules ended up getting oxidized and drifting in such-and-such a direction, etc, etc, etc. This is why the information is lost in practice.



            However, according to the laws of physics as we understand them today, all of the physically possible outcomes in Scenario 1 are different than all of the physically possible outcomes in Scenario 2. There is no way to start with a piece of paper that says "My password is 12345" and end up with precisely the same final state (at the molecular level) as if the piece of paper had said "My password is ABCDE." In this sense, the information is not lost in principle.



            In other words, the laws of physics as we understand them today are reversible in principle, even though they are not reversible in practice. This is one of the key ideas behind how the second law of thermodynamics is derived from statistical mechanics.



            The black hole information paradox says that in the case of a black hole says that our current understanding of physics is necessarily flawed. Either information really is lost in principle when a black hole evaporates, or else spacetime as we know it is only an approximately-valid concept that fails in this case, or else some other equally drastic thing. I think it's important to appreciate that the black hole information paradox is not obvious to most people (certainly not to me, and maybe not to anybody). As a testament to just how non-obvious it is, here are a few review papers mostly written for an audience who already understands both general relativity and quantum field theory:



            [1] Marolf (2017), “The Black Hole information problem: past, present, and future,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02143



            [2] Polchinski (2016), “The Black Hole Information Problem,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04036



            [3] Harlow (2014), “Jerusalem Lectures on Black Holes and Quantum Information,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1231



            [4] Mathur (2011), “What the information paradox is not,” http: //arxiv.org/abs/1108.0302



            [5] Mathur (2009), “The information paradox: A pedagogical intro- duction,” http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1038



            Section 2 in [1] says:




            conventional physics implies the Hawking effect to differ fundamentally from familiar thermal emission from hot objects like stars or burning wood. To explain this difference, ... [technical details]




            Section 4.2 in [2] says:




            The burning scrambles any initial information, making it hard to decode, but it is reversible in principle. ... A common initial reaction to Hawking’s claim is that a black hole should be like any other thermal system... But there is a difference: the coal has no horizon. The early photons from the coal are entangled with excitations inside, but the latter can imprint their quantum state onto later outgoing photons. With the black hole, the internal excitations are behind the horizon, and cannot influence the state of later photons.




            The point of listing these references/excerpts is simply to say that the paradox is not obvious.



            The point of this answer is mainly to say that burning a letter or deleting a hard disk are reversible in principle (no information loss in principle) even though they make the information practically inaccessible, because reconstructing the original message from its ashes (and infrared radiation that has escaped to space, and molecules that have dissipated into the atmosphere, etc, etc, etc) is prohibitively difficult, to say the least.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            (The answers by Mark H and B.fox were posted while this one was being written. This answer says the same thing in different words, but I went ahead and posted it anyway because sometimes saying the same thing in different words can be helpful.)



            The key is to appreciate the difference between losing information in practice and losing information in principle.



            If you write "My password is 12345" on a piece of paper an then burn it, the information might be lost for all practical purposes, but that doesn't mean that the information is lost in principle. To see the difference, compare these two scenarios:




            • Scenario 1: You write "My password is 12345" on a piece of paper an then burn it.


            • Scenario 2: You write "My password is ABCDE" on a piece of paper an then burn it.



            Exactly what happens in either scenario depends on many details, like the specific arrangement of molecules in the piece of paper and the ink, the specific details of the flame that was used to ignite the paper, the specific arrangement of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere near the burning paper, etc, etc, etc. The variety of possible outcomes is equally vast, with possible outcomes differing from each other in the specific details of which parts of the paper ended up as which pieces of ash, which molecules ended up getting oxidized and drifting in such-and-such a direction, etc, etc, etc. This is why the information is lost in practice.



            However, according to the laws of physics as we understand them today, all of the physically possible outcomes in Scenario 1 are different than all of the physically possible outcomes in Scenario 2. There is no way to start with a piece of paper that says "My password is 12345" and end up with precisely the same final state (at the molecular level) as if the piece of paper had said "My password is ABCDE." In this sense, the information is not lost in principle.



            In other words, the laws of physics as we understand them today are reversible in principle, even though they are not reversible in practice. This is one of the key ideas behind how the second law of thermodynamics is derived from statistical mechanics.



            The black hole information paradox says that in the case of a black hole says that our current understanding of physics is necessarily flawed. Either information really is lost in principle when a black hole evaporates, or else spacetime as we know it is only an approximately-valid concept that fails in this case, or else some other equally drastic thing. I think it's important to appreciate that the black hole information paradox is not obvious to most people (certainly not to me, and maybe not to anybody). As a testament to just how non-obvious it is, here are a few review papers mostly written for an audience who already understands both general relativity and quantum field theory:



            [1] Marolf (2017), “The Black Hole information problem: past, present, and future,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02143



            [2] Polchinski (2016), “The Black Hole Information Problem,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04036



            [3] Harlow (2014), “Jerusalem Lectures on Black Holes and Quantum Information,” http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1231



            [4] Mathur (2011), “What the information paradox is not,” http: //arxiv.org/abs/1108.0302



            [5] Mathur (2009), “The information paradox: A pedagogical intro- duction,” http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1038



            Section 2 in [1] says:




            conventional physics implies the Hawking effect to differ fundamentally from familiar thermal emission from hot objects like stars or burning wood. To explain this difference, ... [technical details]




            Section 4.2 in [2] says:




            The burning scrambles any initial information, making it hard to decode, but it is reversible in principle. ... A common initial reaction to Hawking’s claim is that a black hole should be like any other thermal system... But there is a difference: the coal has no horizon. The early photons from the coal are entangled with excitations inside, but the latter can imprint their quantum state onto later outgoing photons. With the black hole, the internal excitations are behind the horizon, and cannot influence the state of later photons.




            The point of listing these references/excerpts is simply to say that the paradox is not obvious.



            The point of this answer is mainly to say that burning a letter or deleting a hard disk are reversible in principle (no information loss in principle) even though they make the information practically inaccessible, because reconstructing the original message from its ashes (and infrared radiation that has escaped to space, and molecules that have dissipated into the atmosphere, etc, etc, etc) is prohibitively difficult, to say the least.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 59 mins ago

























            answered 1 hour ago









            Dan Yand

            6,1191627




            6,1191627












            • I am sceptic against "in principle". When trying to measure the tiny differences between the ashes of 12345 and ABCDE there are necessarily position and momentum of many particles involved. Measurement of one of them could prevent measurement of another one.
              – Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik
              33 mins ago










            • @IbrahimAbdelFaruk-Shaik Your comment raises a very good point. When we say that the laws of physics as we currently know them are "reversible", we are ignoring the infamous measurement problem of quantum physics. Since we don't know how to resolve that, either, I suppose we should remain open to the possibility that the black hole information paradox and the measurement problem might be related in some yet-undiscovered way; but such a connection is not currently clear.
              – Dan Yand
              28 mins ago


















            • I am sceptic against "in principle". When trying to measure the tiny differences between the ashes of 12345 and ABCDE there are necessarily position and momentum of many particles involved. Measurement of one of them could prevent measurement of another one.
              – Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik
              33 mins ago










            • @IbrahimAbdelFaruk-Shaik Your comment raises a very good point. When we say that the laws of physics as we currently know them are "reversible", we are ignoring the infamous measurement problem of quantum physics. Since we don't know how to resolve that, either, I suppose we should remain open to the possibility that the black hole information paradox and the measurement problem might be related in some yet-undiscovered way; but such a connection is not currently clear.
              – Dan Yand
              28 mins ago
















            I am sceptic against "in principle". When trying to measure the tiny differences between the ashes of 12345 and ABCDE there are necessarily position and momentum of many particles involved. Measurement of one of them could prevent measurement of another one.
            – Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik
            33 mins ago




            I am sceptic against "in principle". When trying to measure the tiny differences between the ashes of 12345 and ABCDE there are necessarily position and momentum of many particles involved. Measurement of one of them could prevent measurement of another one.
            – Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik
            33 mins ago












            @IbrahimAbdelFaruk-Shaik Your comment raises a very good point. When we say that the laws of physics as we currently know them are "reversible", we are ignoring the infamous measurement problem of quantum physics. Since we don't know how to resolve that, either, I suppose we should remain open to the possibility that the black hole information paradox and the measurement problem might be related in some yet-undiscovered way; but such a connection is not currently clear.
            – Dan Yand
            28 mins ago




            @IbrahimAbdelFaruk-Shaik Your comment raises a very good point. When we say that the laws of physics as we currently know them are "reversible", we are ignoring the infamous measurement problem of quantum physics. Since we don't know how to resolve that, either, I suppose we should remain open to the possibility that the black hole information paradox and the measurement problem might be related in some yet-undiscovered way; but such a connection is not currently clear.
            – Dan Yand
            28 mins ago











            1














            When Dr. Hawking talks about information being destroyed, he is talking about the erasure of all evidence that the information ever existed. In the case of burning a written letter, you could track the trajectory and composition of every smoke particle as the book burned. Since ink and paper generate different kinds of smoke and start at different locations, you could use that information to reconstruct the original book.



            Obviously, this is impossible to do in real life, but the information is there to be had. In the same way that energy is neither created nor destroyed, information is neither created nor destroyed. This is why Hawking was suspicious about black holes seeming to retain no evidence of what fell into them.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              1














              When Dr. Hawking talks about information being destroyed, he is talking about the erasure of all evidence that the information ever existed. In the case of burning a written letter, you could track the trajectory and composition of every smoke particle as the book burned. Since ink and paper generate different kinds of smoke and start at different locations, you could use that information to reconstruct the original book.



              Obviously, this is impossible to do in real life, but the information is there to be had. In the same way that energy is neither created nor destroyed, information is neither created nor destroyed. This is why Hawking was suspicious about black holes seeming to retain no evidence of what fell into them.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                1












                1








                1






                When Dr. Hawking talks about information being destroyed, he is talking about the erasure of all evidence that the information ever existed. In the case of burning a written letter, you could track the trajectory and composition of every smoke particle as the book burned. Since ink and paper generate different kinds of smoke and start at different locations, you could use that information to reconstruct the original book.



                Obviously, this is impossible to do in real life, but the information is there to be had. In the same way that energy is neither created nor destroyed, information is neither created nor destroyed. This is why Hawking was suspicious about black holes seeming to retain no evidence of what fell into them.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                When Dr. Hawking talks about information being destroyed, he is talking about the erasure of all evidence that the information ever existed. In the case of burning a written letter, you could track the trajectory and composition of every smoke particle as the book burned. Since ink and paper generate different kinds of smoke and start at different locations, you could use that information to reconstruct the original book.



                Obviously, this is impossible to do in real life, but the information is there to be had. In the same way that energy is neither created nor destroyed, information is neither created nor destroyed. This is why Hawking was suspicious about black holes seeming to retain no evidence of what fell into them.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 1 hour ago









                Mark H

                11.8k22339




                11.8k22339























                    0














                    I must admit, I'm not the most qualified person to answer here.



                    If you place the burning letter into a sealed box (a closed system) and allow the system to carry itself to its final state, with a perfect model of the physics involved, you can trace the end state back to its original state if you know the properties of the end state perfectly because the constituent particles of the letter carry with them information regarding their previous interactions. That information is preserved in the system, and can be decoded.



                    If you place a black hole in a box and some in-falling matter, information will be lost behind the horizon, permanently so once the black hole evaporates.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                    • the information paradox is not that the information is trapped behind the horizon, it is about its destruction when the Hawking radiation radiates away the black hole while not containing any information itself. the fact that the information is simply inaccessible to the outside observer is not a paradox in itself.
                      – Симон Тыран
                      42 mins ago












                    • @СимонТыран Hence my first statement. When the black hole finally evaporates—when it reaches its "end state"—all information behind its horizon will be destroyed. That's more or less my point behind "lost behind the horizon." The OP had also asked why burning a letter with written information did not owe anything to the information paradox, which was more what my answer was geared toward.
                      – B.fox
                      32 mins ago
















                    0














                    I must admit, I'm not the most qualified person to answer here.



                    If you place the burning letter into a sealed box (a closed system) and allow the system to carry itself to its final state, with a perfect model of the physics involved, you can trace the end state back to its original state if you know the properties of the end state perfectly because the constituent particles of the letter carry with them information regarding their previous interactions. That information is preserved in the system, and can be decoded.



                    If you place a black hole in a box and some in-falling matter, information will be lost behind the horizon, permanently so once the black hole evaporates.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                    • the information paradox is not that the information is trapped behind the horizon, it is about its destruction when the Hawking radiation radiates away the black hole while not containing any information itself. the fact that the information is simply inaccessible to the outside observer is not a paradox in itself.
                      – Симон Тыран
                      42 mins ago












                    • @СимонТыран Hence my first statement. When the black hole finally evaporates—when it reaches its "end state"—all information behind its horizon will be destroyed. That's more or less my point behind "lost behind the horizon." The OP had also asked why burning a letter with written information did not owe anything to the information paradox, which was more what my answer was geared toward.
                      – B.fox
                      32 mins ago














                    0












                    0








                    0






                    I must admit, I'm not the most qualified person to answer here.



                    If you place the burning letter into a sealed box (a closed system) and allow the system to carry itself to its final state, with a perfect model of the physics involved, you can trace the end state back to its original state if you know the properties of the end state perfectly because the constituent particles of the letter carry with them information regarding their previous interactions. That information is preserved in the system, and can be decoded.



                    If you place a black hole in a box and some in-falling matter, information will be lost behind the horizon, permanently so once the black hole evaporates.






                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    I must admit, I'm not the most qualified person to answer here.



                    If you place the burning letter into a sealed box (a closed system) and allow the system to carry itself to its final state, with a perfect model of the physics involved, you can trace the end state back to its original state if you know the properties of the end state perfectly because the constituent particles of the letter carry with them information regarding their previous interactions. That information is preserved in the system, and can be decoded.



                    If you place a black hole in a box and some in-falling matter, information will be lost behind the horizon, permanently so once the black hole evaporates.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited 29 mins ago

























                    answered 1 hour ago









                    B.fox

                    1376




                    1376












                    • the information paradox is not that the information is trapped behind the horizon, it is about its destruction when the Hawking radiation radiates away the black hole while not containing any information itself. the fact that the information is simply inaccessible to the outside observer is not a paradox in itself.
                      – Симон Тыран
                      42 mins ago












                    • @СимонТыран Hence my first statement. When the black hole finally evaporates—when it reaches its "end state"—all information behind its horizon will be destroyed. That's more or less my point behind "lost behind the horizon." The OP had also asked why burning a letter with written information did not owe anything to the information paradox, which was more what my answer was geared toward.
                      – B.fox
                      32 mins ago


















                    • the information paradox is not that the information is trapped behind the horizon, it is about its destruction when the Hawking radiation radiates away the black hole while not containing any information itself. the fact that the information is simply inaccessible to the outside observer is not a paradox in itself.
                      – Симон Тыран
                      42 mins ago












                    • @СимонТыран Hence my first statement. When the black hole finally evaporates—when it reaches its "end state"—all information behind its horizon will be destroyed. That's more or less my point behind "lost behind the horizon." The OP had also asked why burning a letter with written information did not owe anything to the information paradox, which was more what my answer was geared toward.
                      – B.fox
                      32 mins ago
















                    the information paradox is not that the information is trapped behind the horizon, it is about its destruction when the Hawking radiation radiates away the black hole while not containing any information itself. the fact that the information is simply inaccessible to the outside observer is not a paradox in itself.
                    – Симон Тыран
                    42 mins ago






                    the information paradox is not that the information is trapped behind the horizon, it is about its destruction when the Hawking radiation radiates away the black hole while not containing any information itself. the fact that the information is simply inaccessible to the outside observer is not a paradox in itself.
                    – Симон Тыран
                    42 mins ago














                    @СимонТыран Hence my first statement. When the black hole finally evaporates—when it reaches its "end state"—all information behind its horizon will be destroyed. That's more or less my point behind "lost behind the horizon." The OP had also asked why burning a letter with written information did not owe anything to the information paradox, which was more what my answer was geared toward.
                    – B.fox
                    32 mins ago




                    @СимонТыран Hence my first statement. When the black hole finally evaporates—when it reaches its "end state"—all information behind its horizon will be destroyed. That's more or less my point behind "lost behind the horizon." The OP had also asked why burning a letter with written information did not owe anything to the information paradox, which was more what my answer was geared toward.
                    – B.fox
                    32 mins ago










                    Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                    draft saved

                    draft discarded


















                    Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                    Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                    Ibrahim Abd el Faruk-Shaik is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f450326%2fwhy-is-the-information-paradox-restricted-to-black-holes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

                    How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

                    TypeError: fit_transform() missing 1 required positional argument: 'X'