this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
12 points (67.6% liked)
science
17122 readers
469 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.
2024-11-11
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Steffen Gielen, Lucía Menéndez-Pidal.
Black Hole Singularity Resolution in Unimodular Gravity from Unitarity
Physical Review Letters, 2025; 134 (10)
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.101501
i can't even understand the very beginning of the discussion : why are physicists so obsessed with "information loss" ?
[24]* : S. W. Hawking, Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse
Phys. Rev. D 14, 2460 (1976).
I get why this feels confusing—“information loss” isn’t exactly an everyday concept! Let me break it down:
Physicists are fascinated by the idea of "information loss" because it challenges one of the core principles of quantum mechanics: unitarity. In simple terms, unitarity means that the total information about a system (like the state of particles in the universe) must always be preserved, even if the system changes over time. You should, theoretically, be able to trace backward and recover all information about the system’s past, no matter what has happened.
Now, here’s where black holes come into play: when something falls into a black hole, classical physics tells us that the information about it seems to disappear forever. This creates a tension between general relativity (which governs black holes) and quantum mechanics, which insists that information can’t just vanish. This mystery is called the black hole information paradox.
The "information loss" problem specifically arises during the process of black hole evaporation through Hawking radiation. Stephen Hawking proposed that black holes emit radiation over time due to quantum effects at their event horizons. Eventually, they can shrink and vanish completely. But here’s the kicker: Hawking radiation is seemingly random and doesn’t carry information about what originally fell into the black hole. So, when the black hole disappears, does the information just… go poof? That would violate unitarity!
This paradox has huge implications for how we understand the universe and its laws. If information is lost, it means we need to rethink some foundational ideas in physics. But if information isn’t
To oversimplify, "information" is a very specific thing in quantum physics. Classical physics has the rule that energy can change form but cannot either be created or destroyed.
Information works the same way in quantum physics, which makes black holes seem like a problem since their event horizons are inescapable and anything that falls inside is lost.
why's it a problem? why can't information just be lost at a black hole?
The problem is that it'd be like if matter and energy could just disappear. Black holes would be exclusively tiny, as soon as one formed it'd start vanishing anything that crossed it's event horizon rather than growing, so galaxies could never have formed as their cores would just shrink away as soon as they got too dense.
Black holes are regions of space where information density hits the upper limits allowed by physics. Add more information to it, and the event horizon expands proportionally to what was added. With that in hindsight, it seems rather obvious that the boundary of the event horizon could encode the information once thought to be lost to the black hole inside.
It could do that but what's the evidence that it does? Or has someone proved this is already a feature of semi-classical gravity that just wasn't noticed before? Or is it only a feature of a brand new hypothetical theory?
How deep do you want to go into this, and what's your level if familiarity with the Holographic Principal and AdS/CFT corrospondance? There's no hard evidence yet but there is a shitton of circumstantial evidence to suggest that this is what happens.
If there is no hard evidence yet I have no reason to believe. Go find the evidence, then I will believe it.
That's fine. That is the whole point of science after all. I only meant that this is an idea that is taken very seriously by astrophysicists and is under heavy research. It will very likely turn out to be an accurate description of black holes, we just need better gravitational wave detectors to confirm or refute the idea first.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence
It isn't some crackpot theory some PhD candidate slapped together to get their doctorate last year. There is real, verifiable, peer reviewed science here.
The other alternative is that the quantum information is somehow converted to some value of the black hole's measurable properties; charge, mass, and spin. We know that isn't the case because the values for these that we can infer from observation are consistent rather than growing faster than expected.
I still don't really understand why the information just can't be destroyed. It seems like we're starting from an assumption that it shouldn't be destroyed despite it being so in semi-classical gravity, and then trying to think of alternative theories which could preserve it such as on the boundary or in its charge/mass/spin. Maybe that's correct but it seems like speculation, and it's not speculation based on any actual contradiction between theory and practice, i.e. not because semi-classical gravity has actually made an incorrect prediction in an experiment we can go out and verify, but only because we have certain preconceptions as to how nature should work which aren't compatible with it. So it doesn't really come across to me as a scientific "problem" but more of a metaphysical one.
It's fundamentally a product of one of our most basic assumptions, that the laws of physics don't change.
When the laws of physics don't change, symmetries arise in the math used to describe them, and each of these invariant symmetries corresponds to a law of conservation we can observe experimentally and an aspect of the universe it renders un-measurable.
Conservation of Momentum is a space-translation symmetry which makes it so that absolute position is unmeasurable, we can only tell where we are in relation to other things. Conservation of angular momentum is a rotation symmetry that does the same thing for direction. There's no "center" to the universe and no "up" or "down" without something to stand on for context, and no experiment we could possibly design can prove otherwise.
Conservation of energy (and therefore mass) arises out of time-translation symmetries. There's no way we can distinguish a particular moment in time from any other without setting a relative "time zero" for comparison, and no possible clock we can build that could be 100% accurate. We have to account for the different rate of time in the atomic clocks in our GPS satellites due to their relative velocity to us on the ground, but the lack of absolute time precision means it can only ever provide an estimate with some range of error.
Exactly how the relativity of spacetime implies a universe with conservation of information would require a lot of math, and a new description of spacetime that breaks these conservation laws would have to explain why it "seems to" adhere to them in all the ways we've tested our reality so far.
If I am not mistaken, information loss inside of a black hole comes out of semi-classical gravity. If these symmetries are tied to the assumption that the laws of physics don't change and the symmetries break down in semi-classical gravity, then does that mean in semi-classical gravity the laws of physics change? Is there a particular example of that in the theory you could provide so I can understand?
I don't disagree that information is conserved in general relativity and quantum mechanics taken separately, but when you put them together it is not conserved, and my concern is that I don't understand why we must therefore conclude that this necessarily wrong and it can't just be that information conservation only holds true for limiting cases when you aren't considering how gravitational effects and interference effects operate together simultaneously. I mean, energy conservation breaks down when we consider galactic scales as well in the case of cosmic redshift.
Yes, we can experimentally verify these laws of conservation, because in practice we can only ever observe gravitational effects and interference effects separately, as a limiting case, and thus far there hasn't been an experiment demonstrating the plausibility of viewing them simultaneously and how they act upon each other. In semi-classical gravity these "weird" aspects like information loss in a black hole only arise when we actually consider them together, which is not something we have observed yet in a lab, so I don't see the basis of thinking it is wrong.
You seem to suggest that thinking it is wrong implies the laws of physics change, but I'm not really sure what is meant by this. Is semi-classical gravity not a self-consistent mathematical framework?
To oversimplify with another example from the theory, assume that planet earth was in superposition between two states with a non-zero separation. Semi-classical gravity says the distribution of the gravity field would be split evenly between the two points, but observing such a state is impossible as it must decohere into 100% of the mass being either in one point or the other. It simply doesn't make sense when we try to apply quantum maths to gravitationally-significant objects because gravity/spacetime isn't a quantum field.
So yes, the predictions made by semi-classical gravity diverge from reality when faced with extreme masses, but that theory was only ever intended to be an approximation. It is useful and consistent with reality under certain ranges of conditions, but we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that physics breaks from all known fundamentals in the presence of large masses when the simpler answer is that this is a case where the approximation is wrong. A more complete theory will be able to accurately explain physics across a wider range of conditions without requiring the untestable assumption that there are places where the rules don't apply. We've got a good reason to believe that the rules of physics don't change in the fact that no matter where we look the rules seem to always have been the same and all prior divergences from the model could be explained by better models.
The problem in physics is that we have two models that describe reality with absurd mathematical precision at different scales but which seem to be fundamentally irreconcilable. But we know they must be, because reality has to be assumed to be consistent with itself.
I understand that in semi-classical gravity the curvature of spacetime is based on the expectation value of the stress energy tensor, and so a massive object in a superposition of two possible location would curve spacetime as if the object was in the middle-point of the two locations, but when the state vector is reduced it would suddenly shift to one of those two points. While this does seem weird, no one has ever physically demonstrated that measuring this is actually possible, so until there is a demonstration that it is actually physically possible to measure this, there isn't actually a contradiction between theory and experimental practice. All we can say is "that seems weird" but that's not a scientific argument against it.
You say it diverges from reality but... how do you know that? No experiment has ever demonstrated this. It could be that this is just how reality works, or it could also be that it's just not physically possible to probe this in the first place, and so it's just a nonphysical quirk of the theory of computing something nonphysical in the first place. We can't say for certain it is wrong until someone actually conducts an experiment to probe it, and if we find it is wrong, then not only would we rule out semi-classical gravity, but we would have the data needed to actually replace it with something.
This is my issue with "fundamental physics" these days in general: they do not actually demonstrate any contradiction between theory and experimental practice. The desire to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity is just based on some preconceptions that information shouldn't be destroyed and gravity should be quantizable like every other force, but how do you know that with certainty? You did not derive this from experimental observation, because semi-classical gravity is currently compatible with all experimental observations. It is more that one begins with a preconception of how they think reality should work and says the theory is wrong because it does not fit those preconceptions. Yes, certain aspects of semi-classical gravity are "weird," but that's not a scientific argument against it.
Because of the influence of Karl Popper, people think science = falsifiability, so new theories are then constructed not based on experimental evidence but by trying to better fit into our preconceptions, but are also made to falsifiable because that is "science." When they are falsified by an experiment that just reconfirms the predictions of semi-classical gravity, they just tweak it a bit so the theory is not falsified by that experiment any longer but still technically falsifiable, and they do this ad infinitum. You end up with decades doing this and what do you have, String Theory that is only applicable to an anti-de Sitter space, a universe we don't actually live in? Or Loop Quantum Gravity which can't even reproduce Einstein's field equations?
Popper has been a detrimental influence onto the sciences. Science is not falsifiability. Science is about continually updating our models to resolve contradictions between the theory and experimental practice. If there is no contradiction between the theory and experimental practice then there is no justification to update the model. I have seen a mentality growing more popular these days which is that "fundamental physics hasn't made progress in nearly a century." But my response to this is why should it make progress? Why have not encountered a contradiction between experimental practice and theory, so all this "research" into things like String Theory is just guesswork, there is no reason to expect it to actually go anywhere.
The same is also true of the so-called "measurement problem" which as physicists like Carlo Rovelli and Francois-Igor Pris have pointed out only arise because we have certain metaphysical preconceptions about how reality should work which when applied to quantum theory lead to absurdities and so people often conclude the theory must be wrong somehow, that it's "incomplete," that it needs to be replaced by something like an objective collapse theory or a multiverse theory or something similar. Yet, this is not a scientific criticism, the theory is in no contradiction with the experimental evidence. We should just get rid of our preconceptions about how reality should work and accept how reality does. As Bohr said: stop telling God what to do.
There is no reason to assume the universe acts the way we'd like it to. Maybe the laws of physics really are just convoluted and break down at black holes. While yes, maybe one day we will discover a theory where it does not break down, it is anti-scientific to begin with an a priori assumption that this must necessarily be the case. It could be that the next breakthrough in fundamental physics even makes the mathematics more convoluted! You cannot just begin with a starting point prior to investigation that this is how nature works, you have to derive that a posteriori through investigation, and currently this is what our best theory derived from investigation states. It may be wrong, but there is no justification in claiming it is wrong without showing a contradiction between theory and experimental practice.
This is my issue here. The desire to replace semi-classical gravity with something else, the measurement problem, the desire to unify all forces of nature into a "theory of everything," trying to solve the "fine-tuning problem," these are all ultimately pseudoproblems because they do no derive from any contradiction between experimental practice and theory. They are not genuine scientific problems. I am not even against people looking into these, because who knows, maybe they will stumble across something interesting, but the issue with treating these all as genuine "problems" is that when they go "unsolved" for a century, it makes it look like there is a "crisis in fundamental physics." There just isn't. In fact, it's quite the opposite: every experimental test reconfirms our current best theories, this is the exact opposite of a "crisis." People pretend like we have a "crisis" because our current theories are too good!
On the contrary, this breaks semi-classical gravity's usage of quantum mechanics. The predictions the approximation makes are not compatible with our observations of how quantum mechanics works, and scientists are working on an experiment that can disprove the hypothesis. ( https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.180201 )
I'm afraid you've got that precisely backwards. Falsifiability is the core of science, as it is the method by which factually-deficient hypotheses are discarded. If there is no contradiction between the theory and experimental practice then either all false theories have been discarded or we have overlooked an experiment that could prove otherwise.
That's distinctly false. The Higgs Boson was only proposed in 1964 and wasn't measured 'til just 13 years ago.
Because we still have falsifiable hypotheses to test.
We have, actually. The list of unsolved problems in physics on Wikipedia is like 15 pages long and we're developing new experiments to address those questions constantly.
Likewise, there's no reason to assume that the universe is not acting the way we'd like it to except where contradicted by observable evidence. If the laws of physics can "break down" then they aren't "laws", merely approximations that are only accurate under a limited range of conditions. The fact that the universe continues to exist despite the flaws in our theories proves that there must be a set of rules which are applicable in all cases.
And if the rules can change, then our theories will have to be updated to describe those changes and the conditions where they occur.
The paper is interesting and in the right direction but is just a proposal. It needs to actually be performed, because the results can finally point in the right direction rather than just guessing at what the right direction is.
No, it's a justification for pseudoscience by allowing anyone to invent anything out of whole cloth based on absolutely nothing at all and call it "science."
Except it's precisely used to justify them.
Those two, or the third case that we just haven't conducted the experiment yet that would contradict with current theories (still talking about GR/QFT here specifically).
I am obviously not defending that position and you know for a fact that is a position that has gained a lot of steam recently, you're just trying to annoyingly turn it around on me to make it seem like I am defending a position I am not by stating something rather obvious.
And this is exactly why you're a promoter of pseudoscience: if a theory is "falsifiable" it's "science" and "needs to be tested," even if it's literally based on nothing and there is no good reason anyone should take it seriously. If I claim there is a magical teapot orbiting Saturn that is the cause of some of its currently not well-understood weather patterns and if you just built a specialized 20 billion dollar telescope with a special lens on it and pointed it at specific coordinates you'd discover the proof, technically you can falsify this claim so by your logic it's "science" and therefore we should go out of our way to investigate it. I don't get why it is so difficult to just accept that there is more to a reasonable scientific proposal than it just technically can be falsified. That is obviously not a sufficient criteria at all and treating it as just allows for a ton of factually-deficient hypotheses based on nothing to be taken seriously.
Whatever bullshit nonsense or mysticism someone makes up, as long as there is technically some way to conduct an experiment to falsify it, you will say that's "science." Popper has been complete poison to the academic discourse. In the past I would have to argue against laymen mystics, the equivalent of the modern day "quantum healing" types. But these days I don't even care about those mystics because we have much more problematic mystics: those in academia who promote nonsense like "quantum immortality" and "quantum consciousness" or whatever new "multiverse" theory someone came up with based on pure sophistry, and they pass this off as genuine science, and we are expected to take it seriously by because "erm it technically can be falsified."
Although, my magic teapot analogy isn't even good because the analogy says the teapot is proposed to explain not well-understood weather patterns, so it is proposed to explain an actual problem we haven't solved. A more accurate analogy would be for a person to claim that they believe the hexagon cloud on Saturn should actually be a triangle. Why? No reason, they just feel it should be a triangle, because triangles seem more natural to them. According to you, again, this is technically still science because technically their theory can indeed be falsified by building the special telescope and pointing it at those coordinates.
It's impossible to combat pseudoscience mentality in the public and to combat things like quantum mysticism when some of the #1 promoters of quantum mysticism these days are academics themselves. Half the time when I see a completely absurd headline saying that quantum mechanics proves material reality doesn't exist and "everything is consciousness," or that quantum mechanics proves we're immortal, or that quantum mechanics proves we live inside of a multiverse or a simulation, I click the article to see the source and no, it doesn't go back to a Deepak Chopra sophist, it goes back to "legitimate" publications by an actual academic with credentials in the field who is taken seriously because "falsifiability."
How am I supposed to then tell the laymen the article they're reading is bologna? I can't, because they don't understand quantum physics, so they wouldn't even have the tools to understand it if I explained to them why it's wrong, so they just trust it because it's written by someone with "credentials." Mysticism in academia is way more serious than mysticism among laymen because even otherwise reasonable laymen who do view science positively will end up believing in mysticism if it is backed an academic.
Why are you intentionally being intellectually dishonest? We have been talking about a very specific theory and a very specific field of research this whole time, and you are trying to deflect this to science generally. I am sorry I even engaged with you at all, you are not in any way intellectually honest in the slightest and intentionally trying to misrepresent everything I say to "own" me and constantly are trying to pretend my position is something that it is not.
By criticizing a small handful of pseudoproblems in science you are now trying to dishonestly pretend I am claiming there are no genuinely unsolved problems, because you don't want to actually address my point and are just a hack and I am blocking you after this post for such a ridiculously dishonest way to try and smear me rather than just address my point.
We should just assume the universe is behaving exactly the way we observe it to behave based on the evidence.
What we "like" is irrelevant. We should just observe the evidence and accept that is how the universe works until additional evidence shows otherwise.
Plenty of laws of physics are only applicable to certain conditions, like the ideal gas law. Although, that's not the impression I got from this conversation on how you were using "break down" in the first place, as we were talking about semi-classical gravity where you have singularities at black holes, and you were using "break down" in that sense. There is no change in the law of physics at black holes in semi-classical gravity, the singularity arises from the very structure of the theory and is not in contradiction with it, i.e. its fundamental principles don't suddenly change at a black hole. The singularity at the black hole is a result of its underlying principles.
You want them to apply to cases that currently have not been demonstrated by physically even possible to probe, so you have not even demonstrated it is an actual "case" at all. I am not denying it isn't physically possible to probe either before you dishonestly try to turn my statement around to intentionally misrepresent me as you love to do. I am saying quite the opposite: that we should try to probe the areas that seem to not make much in our current theories. We should be trying to probe quantum effects and gravitational effects at the same time to see how they behave, because that's how we could actually make progress if semi-classical gravity is indeed wrong.
We shouldn't be constantly inventing fake "theories" based on literally nothing that are technically falsifiable then acting surprised when they are falsified, and then slightly tweaking them so they are not longer falsified with the previous experiment but still technically falsifiable with a future experiment. This would be like if you pointed the expensive telescope at Saturn and did not see the magical teapot, so I just changed my mind and said the teapot is actually orbiting Neptune so we need a bigger telescope and then the theory would be falsified!
I could play this game forever and keep tweaking my nonsensical claim every time it is falsified, and according to you this is science! What I am saying is this is not science because science is not just falsifiability. There are tons of genuinely unsolved problems in science, but there are also a small number of "problems" which are poorly motivated, like the "fine-tuning problem" which is also not a genuine scientific problem.
It's really like 99.9% of the stuff in physics that's perfectly fine. Most people in the real world are actually working on practical problems and not nonsense like "quantum consciousness" or whatever. The handful of people I am criticizing is largely a small minority, but they have a huge impact on public discourse and public understanding of science as they tend to be very vocal
Obviously.
Thanks, your explanation is interesting and makes sense at my level of abstraction.
Eventually i would like it, if some physicist could come up with a cosmology where energy could be created and entropy of a close system could decrease ... in specific conditions and in our present day universe.
Also, in my naive understanding, chaotic pendulums creates information.
My buddy is a PhD candidate and he's heavily involved in black hole research, I'm not even going to try to summarize it because when he talks to me it's like me watching a finger puppet play.
One of the things he talks about is how The jury is still out on if energy is even real.
Also: The Lagrangian mathematics they use for quantum physics can be used to describe universes like the one you talk about, and if you're interested in things like that then I absolutely have to recommend some novels by the mathematician and science fiction author Greg Egan. It's way easier to start grasping how weird the physics can get when you get a story from the perspective of people who live there:
The Orthogonal Trilogy (2011-2013) is set in a 4d universe where the passage of time is dependent on the direction of travel in space, about a generation ship launched on an anti-timewise loop back around to the near future to develop a solution to an impending apocalyptic crisis of energy creation at the quantum scale.
Dichronauts (2017) is a journey to the end of the world in a universe where time has two dimensions and life evolved as a symbiosis of two creatures that could each experience only one direction in time.
Schild's Ladder (2002) is set in a distant future where an experiment gone awry creates a more stable form of vacuum, creating an event horizon that expands at half the speed of light. 600 years later, a ship studying the event horizon discovers that the complex geometry of the new space behind it harbors intelligent life at a much smaller scale, with their equivalent of microbes being built from the interactions of a veritable zoo of quantum fields rather than molecules and proteins.
Quarantine (1992) explores the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, set on a future earth where the technology to put the waveform of a human mind into superposition with reality was invented. The user could turn it on, then live all possible lives from that monent until the version of themselves that achieved the result they desired would turn it off and collapse reality back into a single state. This isn't really possible for complicated physics reasons, but if it was then it'd enable seemingly impossible things to become true. The novel explores the consequences of such a future conflicting with the existence of alien species that evolved within superpositioned reality and can't survive when it's collapsed into a single unique state.
This is very complicated, let me sleep on it, i will come back to your comment later.
"Information" in the quantum sense refers to the waveform of the quantum system as a whole, which is kind of a weird thing to get one's head around.
Even in the case of chaotic pendulums, there's no theoretical principle that keeps us from observing and accounting for every particle and quanta of energy involved and using that to prove that the waveform of the entire pendulum is consistent with itself and the expected evolution from previous states.
But the event horizons of black holes seem to break that rule, because the waveforms of black holes can be described with just three properties; mass, charge, and spin. There didn't seem to be "room" for them to encode all the waveforms of anything that falls inside until Stephen Hawking theorized that it could be saved in polarization states of the event horizon boundary and black holes would gradually radiate it away.
i like science and its immense benefits in most fields, still, i resist some theories and ideas.
Thanks again for your clear explanations ... but i will not be scientific on this ! ... and will prefer my "feelings" instead of the scientific consensus. Considering this, it's a good thing I'm not working in this field 🤣