David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (4):371-386 (2011)
Presentations of black hole complementarity by van Dongen and de Haro, as well as by 't Hooft, suffer from a mistaken claim that interactions between matter falling into a black hole and the emitted Hawking-like radiation should lead to a failure of commutativity between space-like-related observables localized inside and outside the black hole. I show that this conclusion is not supported by our standard understanding of quantum interactions. We have no reason to believe that near-horizon interactions will threaten microcausality. If these interactions reliably transfer information to the outgoing radiation, then this response to Hawking's information loss argument should amount to a version of the bleaching scenario. I argue that the challenge facing black hole complementarity is that of reconciling this commitment to bleaching with the expectation that the event horizon will be locally unremarkable. This challenge is most promisingly met by proposals that postulate a consistent account of the limitations of our local semi-classical theories, but no support is added to these postulates by appeals to verificationism or to the interactions considered by 't Hooft.
|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
Don Howard (2004). Who Invented the “Copenhagen Interpretation”? A Study in Mythology. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):669-682.
Mara Beller (1999). Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution. University of Chicago Press.
Peter Bokulich (2005). Niels Bohr's Generalization of Classical Mechanics. Foundations of Physics 35 (3):347-371.
Gordon Belot, John Earman & Laura Ruetsche (1999). The Hawking Information Loss Paradox: The Anatomy of a Controversy. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (2):189 - 229.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Peter Bokulich (2005). Does Black Hole Complementarity Answer Hawking's Information Loss Paradox? Philosophy of Science 72 (5):1336-1349.
Cristi Stoica, Interpretation of Singularities in General Relativity and the Information Loss Paradox.
Cristi Stoica, Interpretation of Singularities in General Relativity and the Information Loss Paradox (Version 2).
D. J. (2001). The Limits of Information. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 32 (4):511-524.
Peter Bokulich (2001). Black Hole Remnants and Classical Vs. Quantum Gravity. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S407-.
Jeroen van Dongen & Sebastian de Haro (2004). On Black Hole Complementarity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 35 (3):509-525.
Per Sandin & Misse Wester (2009). The Moral Black Hole. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (3):291 - 301.
Vladimir A. Lefebvre & Yuri N. Efremov (2008). Cosmic Intelligence and Black Holes. World Futures 64 (8):563 – 576.
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.
Paul Davies (2002). How Far Can the Generalized Second Law Be Generalized? Foundations of Physics 32 (12):1877-1889.
Added to index2011-12-10
Total downloads15 ( #227,181 of 1,790,232 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #266,356 of 1,790,232 )
How can I increase my downloads?