Black holes resolve paradoxes by destroying quantum states | Hacker News Reader

Black holes resolve paradoxes by destroying quantum states

sciencenews.org

16 pointswebmaven6 comments

I want this to make sense - so if anyone can point out where I’m wrong I’d appreciate it.

According to Copenhagen, an observation is an action that changes the state, which Bob is unable to because that would imply that information escaped the black hole. Bob fails, Alice sees the interference pattern.

According to many-worlds, a measurement doesn’t change the state, it changes the observer via entanglement. So Bob would observe the path of the particle and not see the interference pattern. Alice, completely isolated from Bob, would see the interference pattern. The two seeing different things doesn’t seem so odd - causality and black holes have a funky relationship anyway.

I’m also curious about the claim that “The laws of physics behave the same just inside the horizon as outside”. What backs that up?

How is Bob inside the black hole horizon going to detect which slit Alice's particle outside the horizon went to destroy entanglement? The horizon is one-way

We’ll never know! Major difference between the advent of special relativity/QM and modern thought experiments is the gap between theory and experiment. Barring an approach to create table top singularities emerging in the next 100 years - we’re unlikely to be able to settle questions on the quantum mechanics of event horizons.

One of the reasons why condensed matter experiments (the sort that cause misleading headlines that are missing “in condensed matter” in the same way medical headlines are missing “in mice”) are interesting is because they have the potential to set up scenarios where the reasoning that leads to paradoxes in real blackholes, remains valid.

This is just the Diosi-Penrose Interpretation from 25-35 years ago...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Di%C3%B3si%E2%80%93Penrose_mod...

Very shocked that Wald would publish this without attribution to the originators of the theory.

He knows the history and it should be cited.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com