[Fis] Black Hole Notes (reply to John & Krassimir)

[Marcus Abundis]

John – thank you for the intriguing article on the back hole information
paradox. But I was surprised you saw Krassimir's note as insulting that at
"the same time he/she has no [idea] what is 'information'”. This caused me
to take a closer look at the article, which seemed to affirm Krassimis's
view.

The reported progress relies on "information-preserving massless particles
known as 'soft hair', which they say should surround black holes." This
sounds fairly speculative, and it is called "research"?

Then "Hawking's colleague Andrew Strominger
<https://www.physics.harvard.edu/people/facpages/strominger> of Harvard
University explains . . . 'People find it very hard to accept that in the
quantum world, momentum and position are not absolute quantities,' he says.
'But that *pales into insignificance* compared with what we would have to
accept were Hawking's contention true. We would have to accept that there
are no laws of physics."' [emphasis added]
This implies some radically new view of physics (or whatever we might call
it) is needed to frame the matter . . . but now they are merely positing
"soft hair" and various "hairdos"?

A noted figure suggests the "idea to be 'worth pursuing', but points out
that it can only account for a part of the information that enters a black
hole. " And . . . what idea is not worth pursuing?

An yet another figure says the "authors fail to spell out exactly how the
information in the hair becomes encoded into the Hawking radiation." I
imagine even some of the study's authors might agree with Krassimir's
statement.

THE PUNCH LINE . . .
In a priori modeling (the focus of this session) I carefully name *at
least* three types of meaning (paper #2) – the only three of which I am
CERTAIN. Still, your article and other explorations into QM imply
the possibility of other types of *meaningful information*. But such ideas
have not been researched, or posited by me, I only see them as vague
possibilities. Perhaps *you* would care to comment on *meaningful
information* in those contexts. I would find that interesting.

As for Krassimir's comment . . . I thought it was very mild compared to
what might have been said about this admittedly interesting news.

Again, thank you for sharing the article.

Marcus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160704/9a77ae19/attachment.html>