Dr Sabine Hossenfelder explained why this is all just an an illusion:<p>><i>What’s going to happen with this new solution? Most likely, someone’s going to find a problem with it, and everyone will continue working on their own solution. Indeed, there’s a good chance that by the time this video appears this has already happened. For me, the real paradox is why they keep doing it. I guess they do it because they have been told so often this is a big problem that they believe if they solve it they’ll be considered geniuses. But of course their colleagues will never agree that they solved the problem to begin with. So by all chances, half a year from now you’ll see another headline claiming that the problem has been solved.</i><p>><i>And that’s why I stopped working on the black hole information loss paradox. Not because it’s unsolvable. But because you can’t solve this problem with mathematics alone, and experiments are not possible, not now and probably not in the next 10000 years.</i><p><a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/04/i-stopped-working-on-black-hole.html" rel="nofollow">http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/04/i-stopped-working-o...</a>
Quanta is great at explaining deeply technical scientific topics like these. They put the effort into making analogies and comparisons for even the most esoteric theoretical constructs like the ones in this article. I can't judge if they're <i>accurate</i>, owing to not being a theoretical physics Ph.D., but it's always an entertaining read.
The prominent statement in the subtitle "physicists have proved that black holes can shed information" really irks me. Proof is just... not how science works. It is a pervasive and damaging understanding of the process of science.
Clicked this thinking it was about the double slit experiment observer-effect. Maybe that's not exactly a paradox, but I still can't wrap my head around it.
> <i>Particle by particle, the information needed to reconstitute your body will reemerge.</i><p>No. What might emerge are hydrogen molecules (following quark confinement, free neutron decay, chemistry, etc.). The "information" to "reconstitute" the unfortunate astronaut's body is diffused forever.<p>Why do people write this stuff?<p>For that matter, try this wild speculation: Lenny Susskind, "Dear Quibitzers" GR=QM[0], in which he reifys[1] his toy models and carries on as if they were (almost) objective reality.<p>He's a professor at Stanford. I'm reminded of Pauli's remark, "Your theory is crazy. But is it crazy enough?" It seems that a physicist can say almost anything these days.<p>[0] <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.03040" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.03040</a>
[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)</a>