RECENT ARTICLES

An all-encompassing framework of physics could help to explain the evolution of consciousness, intelligence, and free will.

The search is on for a fundamental framework that allows for even stranger links between particles than quantum theory—which could lead us to a theory of everything.

A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.

Einstein’s relativity pushes physicists towards a picture of the universe as a block, in which the past, present, and future all exist on the same footing; but maybe that shift in thinking has gone too far.

FQXI ARTICLE

August 16, 2018

The Complexity Conundrum

Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole’s edge.

FQXi Awardees: Adam Brown

December 5, 2017

Adam Brown

Stanford University

Is the result just a mathematical description, Brown wonders? Or is it a new black hole, as real as the first?

If this is the kind of question you might expect to hear in a philosophy class, that’s no accident: Brown earned an undergraduate degree in that subject from Oxford before becoming a physicist. But the question fits right in at FQXi, which has given Brown a $37,500 grant to explore it—mainly by relating the fundamental physics of gravity to the notion of quantum computational complexity, which counts how many steps a quantum computer has to take to solve a given problem.

Information Paradox

Brown’s puzzle goes all the way back to the black hole information paradox, a conundrum discovered by Cambridge University physicist Stephen Hawking in the 1970s, when he, too, was contemplating black holes. Any such object is governed by Einstein’s theory of gravity, also known as general relativity. And general relativity tells us that certain doom awaits any object unfortunate enough to fall within a certain distance known as the event horizon, where the black hole’s gravity becomes so strong that not even light can escape. Once inside, there is no turning back: the object will inexorably fall to the ’singularity’ at the black hole’s center and be crushed to infinite density.

Now wait a few zillion years, said Hawking. As he himself had discovered in 1974, quantum fluctuations in the space around a black hole will cause it to radiate photons and other particles as if it were hot. His argument is based on a standard result from quantum theory, which holds that these fluctuations are everywhere, and keep every patch of ’empty’ space aboil with particle-antiparticle pairs. Ordinarily, these particles recombine and vanish almost as soon as they appear, and have no effect. But in the space near a black hole, Hawking had pointed out, one of the particles can sometimes fall through the event horizon and be lost, forcing the other particle to fly off to infinity as radiation.

Each of these emerging quanta will carry off an infinitesimal bit of the black hole’s energy, decreasing its mass. Eventually the black hole will evaporate, leaving nothing to mark its existence but the expanding cloud of radiation.

A Computation Before Dying?

Calculating the gruesome fate that awaits an astronaut caught by a black hole.

Credit: Lolzdui

But you got a contradictory answer if you assumed that the formation and evaporation of a black hole is governed by quantum physics. Because information can neither be created nor destroyed in a quantum process, just transformed, it has to wind up in the radiation; there’s nothing else left. Yet the mathematics of Hawking radiation is very clear on this point: the quantum state of any one radiation particle is random, and carries no useful information.

Physicists have spent the past four decades trying to resolve this contradiction. By the mid-1990s, Brown’s senior colleague at Stanford, Leonard Susskind, and others came up with an apparent resolution of the paradox. Susskind realized that even though individual Hawking particles must have random quantum states, the quantum state of all the radiation particles as a whole can contain subtle correlations known as ’entanglement’—meaning that a measurement made on one particle will immediately influence the quantum state of its partners. And that entanglement, Susskind argued, is what might carry the missing information.

Monogamy of Entanglement

This quickly became the dominant view of how to resolve the black hole information paradox. Even Hawking was convinced. But in 2012, four physicists in California, widely referred to by their initials, AMPS (for Ahmed Almheiri, Donald Marolf, Joe Polchinski, and James Sully), published a powerful challenge. In Susskind’s scenario, the AMPS team pointed out, black hole information is preserved only if each radiation particle is entangled with all the radiation that emerged before it. But each such radiation particle is also supposed to be entangled with its twin that fell into the event horizon. Both those statements cannot be true, said the AMPS team: an iron rule of quantum mechanics known as ’the monogamy of entanglement’ says that no particle can be entangled with more than one thing at a time.

In effect, there

is no inside

to the horizon.

is no inside

to the horizon.

- Adam Brown

This ’firewall paradox’ was a modern—"more vivid"—recasting of the information paradox, says Brown. It roiled the community of theoretical physicists, who were faced with sacrificing a key tenet of general relativity if they wanted to maintain that quantum laws hold everywhere. And Brown, who was just then moving to Stanford to start a postdoctoral appointment, found himself in the thick of it.

For him and many others, the most interesting take on the firewall paradox came in a 2013 paper by Daniel Harlow, now at MIT, and Stanford’s Patrick Hayden. Harlow and Hayden couldn’t definitively rule out the possibility that firewalls are real—and that, in turn, general relativity is wrong. But they were able to offer some reassurance to those physicists who prefer to hold on to general relativity anyway: they showed that it is logically consistent to believe there is no firewall at the horizon, without having to run into the quantum paradox raised by AMPS.

Jumping into the Hole

Harlow and Hayden’s argument hinges on what a real person could ever actually measure. The two physicists imagined an insanely curious observer—’Alice’—who is determined to see for herself whether a firewall really exists at the black hole’s edge, or whether the monogamy of entanglement breaks down there. Alice’s plan is to station herself outside the black hole while she identifies some of the emerging Hawking particles and measures whether they are entangled. Then she will jump into the hole to track their infalling twins. Assuming that no firewall exists, she will then be able to monitor if the twins remain entangled with their outgoing Hawking partners, as she drifts alongside them toward the black hole’s singularity. (If the black hole is big enough, Alice could have weeks or even years to make her measurements before hitting the singularity.) Of course, if the firewall does exist, Alice will get her answer in a more gruesome way—when she is burned alive at the horizon.

Although that is a fine plan in theory, Harlow and Hayden found that things get stickier in practice. In the pre-jump phase, they pointed out, Alice can’t confirm that the outgoing Hawking particles are entangled until she has captured roughly half of them. And even then, she would have to decode her data with a quantum computer—a step that is a show-stopper all by itself. Harlow and Hayden showed that any such decoding process would have an inconceivably vast ’computational complexity,’ meaning that it would require a horrendous number of computational steps to complete—something like

We have to think

about quantum complexity

when we think about

black hole information.

about quantum complexity

when we think about

black hole information.

- Juan Maldacena

In short, says Brown, "there’s no need for there to be a firewall, because the paradoxical experiment from which the firewall is meant to save you cannot actually be enacted without seriously changing the system under study."

For Susskind, the Harlow-Hayden analysis was something genuinely new. "You talk to computer scientists and they go, ’Complexity—of course’," he says. "But these ideas were very unfamiliar to physicists." Likewise for Juan Maldacena, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) in Princeton, New Jersey: "They showed that we have to think about quantum complexity when we think about black hole information."

Not everyone thinks that the Harlow-Hayden argument is watertight, however. "The idea that practical limits on computation mean that you can’t discuss certain things—I’m not sure I like it," says Douglas Stanford, also at IAS. "You can’t ever be sure that the limits are real, and won’t be shattered as soon as you find a cleverer algorithm," he notes. Maybe physics should stick to asking what is possible, not what is hard to compute.

Fair enough, says Brown: if you believe that there is a firewall, there’s no need to follow the Harlow-Hayden line of argument at all. "But I don’t want to believe in firewalls, because they bring a host of problems of their own," he says. So with his FQXi grant, he is trying to tie up the loose ends in the Harlow-Hayden argument and "find a reason why it’s consistent not to believe in a firewall."

Uncertainty Principle

Brown’s idea is to reframe the Harlow-Hayden argument as a statement about the nature of physical law. In physics, he says, the traditional approach is that nature doesn’t care whether computations are hard: processes unfold anyway. "But I think the right model to compare it to is quantum mechanics in the early 20th century, when the moral was that you couldn’t measure both position and momentum at the same time." Physicists had to accept that this ’uncertainty principle’ wasn’t just a practical limitation of their measuring apparatus, but a fundamental limitation on the kinds of questions they could ask experimentally.

By analogy, says Brown, "the moral for quantum gravity in the 21st century will be that nature is not required to give a well-posed answer to exponentially complicated questions."

That brings us back to Brown’s thought experiment about whether a clever enough simulation of a black hole should be thought of as being as real as the entity it is modeling. In the case of Alice, he explains, she would have to do an exponentially complicated simulation of all the possible things she could see once she jumped into the black hole. But if she could do that, rendering every quantum detail with sufficiently high fidelity, says Brown, then all the virtual Alices and black holes that live inside her quantum computer would be as real as she is. And yet the life course of each would be different: "You would have situations where Alice sees a firewall, but also where she doesn’t see a firewall," he says—"which renders the actual existence of the firewall meaningless."

Comment on this Article

Please read the important Introduction that governs your participation in this community. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated and posts containing such language will be deleted. Otherwise, this is a free speech Forum and all are welcome!

function ValidatePostText_main () {
form = document.addPostForm_main;
var recaptcha = $("#g-recaptcha-response").val();
if (recaptcha === "") {
event.preventDefault();
alert("The reCaptcha Box below must be checked before you submit the form");
}
else if (form.postText_main.value == '') {
alert ("The post contains no text");
return false;
}
else {
return true;
}
}

**Your name:**
(optional)

Recent Comments

read all article comments

Please read the important Introduction that governs your participation in this community. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated and posts containing such language will be deleted. Otherwise, this is a free speech Forum and all are welcome!

Please enter the text of your post, then click the "Submit New Post" button below. You may also optionally add file attachments below before submitting your edits.

HTML tags are not permitted in posts, and will automatically be stripped out. Links to other web sites are permitted. For instructions on how to add links, please read the link help page.

You may use superscript (10

^{100}) and subscript (A_{2}) using [sup]...[/sup] and [sub]...[/sub] tags.You may use bold (

**important**) and italics (*emphasize*) using [b]...[/b] and [i]...[/i] tags.You may also include LateX equations into your post.

Insert LaTeX Equation
[hide]

LaTeX equations may be displayed in FQXi Forum posts by including them within [equation]...[/equation] tags. You may type your equation directly into your post, or use the LaTeX Equation Preview feature below to see how your equation will render (this is recommended).

For more help on LaTeX, please see the LaTeX Project Home Page.

LaTeX Equation Preview

preview equation

clear equation

insert equation into post at cursor

LaTeX equations may be displayed in FQXi Forum posts by including them within [equation]...[/equation] tags. You may type your equation directly into your post, or use the LaTeX Equation Preview feature below to see how your equation will render (this is recommended).

For more help on LaTeX, please see the LaTeX Project Home Page.

LaTeX Equation Preview

preview equation

clear equation

insert equation into post at cursor

Attachments
[hide]

You may optionally attach up to two documents to your post. To add an attachment, use the following feature to browse your computer and select the file to attach. The maximum file size for attachments is 1MB.

Once you're done adding file attachments, click the "Submit New Post" button to add your post.

You may optionally attach up to two documents to your post. To add an attachment, use the following feature to browse your computer and select the file to attach. The maximum file size for attachments is 1MB.

Once you're done adding file attachments, click the "Submit New Post" button to add your post.

NANCY CHOPRA wrote on July 26, 2018

I really like the information present in your post, it is very informative and it is very helpful for us.

http://www.nancychopra.net/

I really like the information present in your post, it is very informative and it is very helpful for us.

http://www.nancychopra.net/

LUDHIANA CALL GIRLS wrote on July 18, 2018

Well done for giving such a unique piece of information. The write-up given by you is truly outstanding. It is easy to understand your content and be familiar with it. I have also gone through your profile and found that out you’ve enough experience to produce quality content.

Ludhiana escorts | Ludhiana call girls | Ludhiana escorts services | Amritsar escorts | Amritsar call girls | Amritsar escorts services

Thank You!

Well done for giving such a unique piece of information. The write-up given by you is truly outstanding. It is easy to understand your content and be familiar with it. I have also gone through your profile and found that out you’ve enough experience to produce quality content.

Ludhiana escorts | Ludhiana call girls | Ludhiana escorts services | Amritsar escorts | Amritsar call girls | Amritsar escorts services

Thank You!

SIMMY CHOPRA wrote on July 13, 2018

Thank to give us the best information. A really likeable article,

http://www.celebritymodel.in/

http://www.celebritymodel.net/

Thank to give us the best information. A really likeable article,

http://www.celebritymodel.in/

http://www.celebritymodel.net/

read all article comments