Does Black Hole Complementarity Answer Hawking's Information Loss Paradox?
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 argumen...
| Published in: | Philosophy of Science Vol. 72; no. 5; pp. 1336 - 1350 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
Dec2005
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=24277147&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 24277147 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00318248 PSC jtl: Philosophy of Science issn: 00318248 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Dec2005 vid: 72 iid: 5 pid: 15979 pub: Cambridge University Press artinfo: ui: 24277147 10.1086/508972 ppf: 1336 ppct: 14 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 227KB tig: atl: Does Black Hole Complementarity Answer Hawking's Information Loss Paradox? aug: au: Bokulich, Peter affil: Department of Philosophy, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215 su: Supermassive black holes Paradox Complementarity (Physics) Philosophy of science Philosophy & science Paradigm (Theory of knowledge) sug: subj: Supermassive black holes Paradox Complementarity (Physics) Philosophy of science Philosophy & science Paradigm (Theory of knowledge) ab: 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. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Philosophy of Science is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Philosophy of Science holder: Cambridge University Press dt: @attributes: year: 2005 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|