Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:27:16.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Black Hole Remnants and Classical vs. Quantum Gravity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Peter Bokulich
Peter Bokulich*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
*
†Send requests for reprints to the author, Department of Philosophy, 336 O'Shaughnessy Hall, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556; e-mail: Bokulich.1@nd.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Type
Quantum Gravity
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 68 , Issue S3: No. 3 Supplement: Proceedings of the 2000 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 2001 , 2001 , pp. S407 - S423
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

The content of this paper constitutes a substantial portion of Chapter IV of my forthcoming dissertation, “Horizons of Description: Black Holes and Complementarity”. Thanks to Jim Cushing, Don Howard, Laura Ruetsche, and the Chicago Area Philosophy of Physics Group for helpful comments and discussions.

References

Banks, T. (1995), “Lectures on Black Holes and Information Loss”, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplement 41:21–65.10.1016/0920-5632(95)00430-HCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belot, Gordon, Earman, John, and Ruetsche, Laura (1999), “The Hawking Information Loss Paradox: The Anatomy of a Controversy”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50:189–229.10.1093/bjps/50.2.189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddings, Steven B. (1992), “Black Holes and Massive Remnants”, Physical Review D 46:1347–1352.10.1103/PhysRevD.46.1347CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giddings, Steven B. (1995a), “Quantum Mechanics of Black Holes”, in Gava, E., Masiero, A., Narain, K. S., Randjbar-Daemi, S., and Shafi, Q. (eds.), 1994 Summer School in High Energy Physics and Cosmology. ICTP Series in Theoretical Physics-Vol. 11. Singapore: World Scientific, 530–574.Google Scholar
Giddings, Steven B. (1995b), “Why Aren't Black Holes Infinitely Produced?”, Physical Review D 51:6860–6869.10.1103/PhysRevD.51.6860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawking, Stephen W. (1976), “Breakdown of Predictability in Gravitational Collapse”, Physical Review D 14:2460–2473.10.1103/PhysRevD.14.2460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
't Hooft, Gerard (1985), “On the Quantum Structure of a Black Hole”, Nuclear Physics B 256:727–745.10.1016/0550-3213(85)90418-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar