David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S407- (2001)
Belot, Earman, and Ruetsche (1999) dismiss the black hole remnant proposal as an inadequate response to the Hawking information loss paradox. I argue that their criticisms are misplaced and that, properly understood, remnants do offer a substantial reply to the argument against the possibility of unitary evolution in spacetimes that contain evaporating black holes. The key to understanding these proposals lies in recognizing that the question of where and how our current theories break down is at the heart of these debates in quantum gravity. I also argue that the controversial nature of assessing the limits of general relativity and quantum field theory illustrates the significance of attempts to establish the proper borders of our effective theories.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gordon Belot & John Earman (2001). Pre-Socratic Quantum Gravity. In Craig Callender & Nick Huggett (eds.), Physics Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale. Cambridge University Press. 213--55.
Louis Crane (2010). Possible Implications of the Quantum Theory of Gravity: An Introduction to the Meduso-Anthropic Principle. [REVIEW] Foundations of Science 15 (4):369-373.
D. J. (2001). The Limits of Information. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 32 (4):511-524.
Gordon Belot (1996). Why General Relativity Does Need an Interpretation. Philosophy of Science 63 (3):88.
Peter Bokulich (2011). Interactions and the Consistency of Black Hole Complementarity. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (4):371-386.
Peter Bokulich (2005). Does Black Hole Complementarity Answer Hawking's Information Loss Paradox? Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1336-1349.
G. Belot, J. Earman & and L. Ruetsche (1999). The Hawking Information Loss Paradox: The Anatomy of Controversy. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (2):189-229.
Cristi Stoica, Interpretation of Singularities in General Relativity and the Information Loss Paradox (Version 2).
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads17 ( #98,934 of 1,102,819 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #84,523 of 1,102,819 )
How can I increase my downloads?