Time dependent Schrödinger equation for black hole evaporation: no information loss by Christian Corda

Christian,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

Jim

Dear Christian Corda,

Did Wheeler really already coin "the phrase "It from bit or Bit from It?" in the 1950s"?

If so I have to correct my essay and perhaps also my tendency to see the pendulum of my judgment that has so far swung in favor of Shannon's view.

If you are a coward, just join those who scored me one without taking issue in public.

Regards,

Eckard

Hello, Christian Corda,

Thank you for a very informative and physics based essay. I'm very interested in black holes and their use in developing the Holographic Principle. I may wish to email you in the future after I fully digest all this. Thank you for sharing your teaching,

Matthew

Dear Dr. Corda,

Thanks for your well written essay and in which you have tried to solve one of the outstanding problems in black hole (BH) information paradox that the information is not lost in BH evaporation but that it is preserved. I hope your effort sustains and will be rewarded in due course.

Wishing you all the best and I am going to rate your essay with a very good score.

Sreenath

Dear professor Cristian Corda:

I am a physician specialized as a psychiatrist. I'm clarifying this point, just to also make understandable that I don't know almost nothing of physics and also of mathematics. But when I read the title of your essay: "Time dependent Schrödinger equation for black hole evaporation: no information loss" I ask myself how physicists can work for years and years, on and around something, than no physicist since the discipline began as such, knew or know what "time" is, your essay refer to a subject, that supposedly depend on "time". I know that physics don't know its definition neither its more important experimental meaning. So how a physicist can understand Schrödinger equation if they don't know what is "time" from which the equation suppose to depend.

I know that physicists when referring to "time" they in fact are referring mainly to the measuring of "duration", they can't take "time" as a physic entity and relate its properties with any other physical entity properties like gravity for example, just because nobody know what "time" properties are.

I know that you also can depend of something that you don't know and that you don't understand, but become workable for you all, because the reliable and exact measuring of "duration". Medicine also used plants to cure people without knowing why these were effective, and even that, they kept using it.

But physics is not like medicine, is among the exact sciences. As I said when in physics people refer to "time", they mainly believe they are referring to measuring "duration", the problem is, that they don't know what is "duration" either, because this one is define as a period of "time" and if you don't know the meaning of "time" you don't know the meaning of "duration" either.

So you don't think that could be useful to know from what is depending Schrödinger equation. As a physicist you think that could be possible that depend from a quality or property of every physical existing thing like "motion", which when is "constant" or "uniform" as in celestial bodies and clocks, can be use to measure now days, with great precision, the periods of change and transformation allowed by "motion"? That now on we can call "duration"?.

With my best whishes

Héctor Daniel Gianni

Dear Ch.,

I wish you pleasant holidays. Don't hurry. I referred to your utterance "I also think it is not a coincidence that the great scientist who coined the phrase "It from bit or Bit from It?" in the 1950s, i.e. John A. Wheeler, was the same scientist who popularized the term "black hole" in the 1960s."

I wrote "Following Edwin T. Jaynes, Frederick W. Kantor, Carl F. v. Weizsaecker, Edward Fredkin [3], and others, Wheeler offered his "it of bit" when the practical superiority of digital methods for noise-independent data transmission was obvious, and a digital world seemed to be quite natural." See also my Ref. [1] J A Wheeler (1990) Information, physics, quantum: The search for links, in W Zurek (ed.) Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information. Redwood City: Addison-Wesley.

I cannot derive from this rather late application of ideas by Shannon that Wheeler was "the great scientist". Admittedly, there was a reason for me to strive for a fair comparison between Shannon's rather common sense view and Wheeler's - as I tried to show - rather closely related to Einstein belief:

The current physics follows Einstein, Hilbert, and Wheeler in assuming a block universe without a now that separates the past from the future. Wheeler and Feynman did even offer a theory that allows going backward *in* time.

Your name is Christian. Did you expect a fair score from a strongly believing Israel or Mohamed in a competition concerning belief related matters? If an essay like mine merely disagrees with what you were told then you should perhaps abstain from rating it accordingly. On the other hand, your factual criticism will be highly welcome.

Cheers,

Eckard

Dear Ch,

My English is shaky. That's why I am confused by your wrote "conied" three times. Perhaps you meant coined in the sense of Wheeler invented these phrases.

Most likely, Wheeler's It from bit was indeed inspired by those who I quoted. In particular did Fredkin believe "that atoms, electrons, and quarks consist ultimately of bits--binary units of information, like those that are the currency of computation in a personal computer or a pocket calculator. And he believe[d] that the behavior of those bits, and thus of the entire universe, is governed by a single programming rule.

If your name Christian was chosen after the surgeon Christiaan Barnard then you are pretty young as compared with me. This means you are at the beginning of your scientific carrier, and you must not utter any doubt whether Einstein's theory of relativity is possibly flawed. Meanwhile I prefer the opinion of Michelson who was also a Jew.

Just today I read that Einstein's questionable Poincarè synchronization was not only correctly used by telegraphers to take into account delays in Transatlantic cables, which was largely known to me in principle, and this synchronization method was still reasonably used under the wrong assumption of a light-carrying aether by Poincarè but Einstein might have adopted it from a Swiss patent application for synchronizing clocks when he reviewed it at the patent office in Bern. I gave the reference in reply to Paul at topic 1793.

While I did not derive from your name that you are a Christian believer, a strongly believing Mohamed will perhaps suspect that. I did not by chance refer to the word belief in the title of my essay: Shannon's (and to some extent my own) view on Wheeler's (and Einstein's) belief. Einstein confessed that for him as believing physicist the distinction between past (present) and future is merely an albeit obstinate illusion. I do not believe that.

Cheers,

Eckard

Dear professor Christian Corda:

Thank you for your answer, you remind me Hawking book where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", with this adjective, he is implying simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slow clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

In your post you said: "Yes, in general we use the motion of bodies to measure it" answering my suggestion "could be possible that depend from a quality or property of every physical existing thing like "motion", which when is "constant" or "uniform" as in celestial bodies and clocks, can be use to measure now days, with great precision, the periods of change and transformation allowed by "motion"? That now on we can call "duration"?". I insist, that the "measuring motion" should always and only must use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" " which integrates a and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or "motion", time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe.

At this point I trust you are interested to read my essay "The deep nature of reality" don't bother to rate it, I don't care of the contest. I care that this find that allowed me a physician, to make a few things, in the hands of theoretical physicists could make marvelous things. I am an old man I wouldn't be able to do much more.

In the essay there is a 16 or 17 lines demonstration, that in my opinion proves that with the clock we are measuring not the mysterious "time", but motion, is very hard to be read, but I thought was necessary, please if you can put your attention and patient in it. I think is important.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Dear Dr. Corda,

I have pleasure in rating your essay with maximum honors and I have rightly done so.

Wishing you best of luck in the essay contest.

Cheers,

Sreenath