Showing posts with label Hawking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hawking. Show all posts

Sunday, December 19, 2010

The Cheshire Cat's Grin, Alice in Wonderland, and Information Loss






Jack Dikian
December 2010



Introduction

As I was trying to fall asleep last night – I thought about a thought experiment that I’ve gone back to over and over again. In fact, since I was a boy. Rocketing away in a spaceship and looking back at my house, my street, my suburb and friends.

After a while, they become scarcely distinguishable and not much more than mere inhabitants, faceless beings without person or form. I’ve always felt I’m taking away with me the knowledge of the frequent earth-born misunderstandings, the eagerness of people to kill one another, their hatreds, imagined self-importance, and the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe as this tiny pale blue home disappeared in the vastness of the countless stars.

As I got older and learned more about cosmology and exotic phenomena such as black holes, I would wounder how it would be if trapped in a black hole. And overtime, I’d wonder if there was a way to let my friends know what I once knew. Is the knowledge (actually information) I’m carrying destroyed as gravitational forces pull me apart?

Conservation of information in quantum mechanics

Quantum mechanics incorporates a principle that information about a system is encoded in its wave function, and that the evolution of the wave function is determined by a unitary operator implying that information is conserved (in the quantum sense). Here, quantum determinism, and reversibility are at play.

Any deterministic time reversible theory must conserve information and the evolution of the wave function satisfies this. However, whenever an observation is made it would seem that new information is created, and reconciling this, with the absolute conservation of information in the physical universe is not necessarily straight forward.

Causality of information as a subjective human interaction of the mind may be the source of common confusion. A mind act has no information momentum to transfer to the system. A momentum change as a cause of observation was/is always the physical meaning of information. A change in system as an observation then allows the effect of all as information conservation.

Black Holes and Singularities Acting As Sinks

In the 1970s, Stephen Hawking showed that black holes evaporate by quantum processes. He also asserted that information, such as the identity of matter pulled into black holes, is permanently lost thus challenging a fundamental tenet of quantum mechanics - information cannot be lost. Hawking renounced the idea later but unable, as other weren’t able, to show the mechanism for how information might escape a black hole.

More recently, a team of physicists at Penn State, led by Abhay Ashtekar (and his collaborators, Victor Taveras, a graduate student in the Penn State Department of Physics, and Madhavan Varadarajan, a professor at the Raman Research Institute in India) announced they have shown a mechanism by which information can be recovered from black holes. They say their findings expand space-time beyond its assumed size, thus providing room for information to reappear.

To explain the issue, Ashtekar used an analogy from Alice in Wonderland. "When the Cheshire cat disappears, his grin remains," he said. "We used to think it was the same way with black holes. Hawking's analysis suggested that at the end of a black hole's life, even after it has completely evaporated away, a singularity, or a final edge to space-time, is left behind, and this singularity serves as a sink for unrecoverable information."

The researchers suggest that singularities do not exist in the real world and "Information only appears to be lost because we have been looking at a restricted part of the true quantum-mechanical space-time". Once you consider quantum gravity, then space-time becomes much larger and there is room for information to reappear in the distant future on the other side of what was first thought to be the end of space-time."

To conduct their studies, the team used a two-dimensional model of black holes to investigate the quantum nature of real black holes, which exist in four dimensions. That's because two-dimensional systems are simpler to study mathematically. But because of the close similarities between two-dimensional black holes and spherical four-dimensional black holes, the team believes that this approach is a general mechanism that can be applied in four dimensions.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

What's Real - Grand Design




Jack Dikian

Thoughts and Comments
The Grand Design
Bantam books 2010



According to one internet based dictionary, “Real” is being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verified existence; not illusory; "real objects"; "real people -not ghosts" etc…

When philosophy is leaned-upon, things become, expectedly a little more murky. Despite the seeming straightforwardness of the realist position, in the history of philosophy there has been continuous debate about what is real. In addition, there has been significant evolution in what is meant by the term "real".

Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief that our reality is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. Philosophers who profess realism, therefore, also typically believe that truth consists in a belief's correspondence to reality.

Model-dependent realism as discussed by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2010 book The Grand Design is a scientific method of exploration based on how well a model does at describing the physical reality of the situation. Among scientists, this is not, necessarily a controversial approach. This, however, implies that it is somewhat meaningless to discuss the reality of the situation and, rather, the only meaningful thing you can talk about is the usefulness of the given model. One quote from this book…

"There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we will adopt a view that we will call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science."

The authors seem to have developed a theory familiar to philosophers since the 1980s, namely 'perspectivalism'. Perspectivism is the view developed by Friedrich Nietzsche that all ideations take place from particular perspectives.

So according to Hawking and Mlodinow, not only does science fail to provide a single description of reality, they say, there is no theory-independent reality at all. Here, we are told not to expect a unifying theory of everything, rather a set of theories (such as M-theory) that overlap at their boundaries. They argue that the scientific obsession with formulating a single new model may be misplaced, and that by synthesising existing theories we may better provide a picture of unification (my words).

Also, according to the authors, enough is known about M-theory to see that God is not required to answer for the existence of all, instead the existence of a multiverse, à la string theory will suffice.

The authors point out that the laws of nature seem to be tuned incredibly precisely to allow life to exist. Tweak them every so slightly, and there might not even be suns and planets, let alone living things. So the vast majority of those different universes would be uninhabitable.

The author’s argument against divine creation is based on string theory and one associated interpretation, multiverse – however, both strings and multiverse are ideas lacking, obviously, empirical evidence and consistent interpretation.

A thoroughly lucid and accessible book, nicely illustrated and thought provoking.