Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T16:24:44.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Black Hole Complementarity Answer Hawking's Information Loss Paradox?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Peter Bokulich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A proper understanding of black hole complementarity as a response to the information loss paradox requires recognizing the essential role played by arguments for the applicability and limitations of effective semiclassical theories. I argue that this perspective sheds important light on the arguments advanced by Susskind, Thorlacius, and Uglum—although ultimately I argue that their position is unsatisfactory. I also consider the argument offered by 't Hooft for the breakdown of microcausality around black holes, and conclude that it relies on a mistaken treatment of measurement collapse. There is, however, a legitimate argumentative role for black hole complementarity, exemplified by the position of Kiem, Verlinde, and Verlinde, that calls for a more subtle analysis of the limitations facing our effective theories.

Type
General Relativity
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2005 , pp. 1336 - 1349
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

The content of a substantial part of this paper is drawn from Bokulich (2003, Chapter 5).

References

Belot, Gordon, Earman, John, and Ruetsche, Laura (1999), “The Hawking Information Loss Paradox: The Anatomy of a Controversy”, The Hawking Information Loss Paradox: The Anatomy of a Controversy 50:189–229.Google Scholar
Bokulich, Peter (2001), “Black Hole Remnants and Classical vs. Quantum Gravity”, Black Hole Remnants and Classical vs. Quantum Gravity 68 (Proceedings): S407–S423.Google Scholar
Bokulich, Peter (2003), “Horizons of Description: Black Holes and Complementarity”, Ph.D. dissertation, Notre Dame University.Google Scholar
Hawking, Stephen W. (1976), “Breakdown of Predictability in Gravitational Collapse”, Breakdown of Predictability in Gravitational Collapse 14:2460–2473.Google Scholar
Kiem, Youngjai, Verlinde, Herman, and Verlinde, Erik (1995), “Black Hole Horizons and Complementarity”, Black Hole Horizons and Complementarity 52:7053–7065.Google ScholarPubMed
Lowe, David, Polchinski, Joseph, Susskind, Leonard, Thorlacius, Larus, and Uglum, John (1995), “Black Hole Complementarity versus Locality”. Physical Review D 52:6997–7010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephens, Christopher R., Hooft, Gerard ’t, and Whiting, Bernard F. (1994), “Black Hole Evaporation without Information Loss”, Black Hole Evaporation without Information Loss 11:621–647.Google Scholar
Strominger, Andrew, and Vafa, Cumrun (1996), “Microscopic Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy”, Microscopic Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy 379:99–104.Google Scholar
Susskind, Leonard, and Thorlacius, Larus (1994), “Gedanken Experiments Involving Black Holes”, Gedanken Experiments Involving Black Holes 49:966–974.Google ScholarPubMed
Susskind, Leonard, Thorlacius, Larus, and Uglum, John (1993), “The Stretched Horizon and Black Hole Complementarity”, The Stretched Horizon and Black Hole Complementarity 48:3743–3761.Google ScholarPubMed
't Hooft, Gerard (1985), “On the Quantum Structure of a Black Hole”, On the Quantum Structure of a Black Hole 256:727–745.Google Scholar
't Hooft, Gerard (1996), “The Scattering Matrix Approach for the Quantum Black Hole: An Overview”, The Scattering Matrix Approach for the Quantum Black Hole: An Overview 11:4623–4688.Google Scholar