Information Loss in Black Holes
Information Loss in Black Holes
Information Loss in Black Holes
084013-2
INFORMATION LOSS IN BLACK HOLES PHYSICAL REVIEW D 72, 084013 (2005)
E0
shown that the path integral over topologically trivial e . This projects out the states with energy E0 ;
metrics like periodically identified AdS is unitary. Z
i1
So in the end everyone was right in a way. Information is ZE0 dZeE0 : (3)
i1
lost in topologically nontrivial metrics like black holes.
This corresponds to dissipation in which one loses sight of For E0 1=2 most of these states will correspond to
the exact state. On the other hand, information about the thermal radiation in AdS which acts like a confining box of
exact state is preserved in topologically trivial metrics. The volume 3=2 . However, there will be thermal fluctua-
confusion and paradox arose because people thought clas- tions which occasionally will be large enough to cause
sically in terms of a single topology for spacetime. It was gravitational collapse to form a small black hole. This
either R4 or a black hole. But the Feynman sum over black hole will evaporate back to thermal AdS. If one
histories allows it to be both at once. One cannot tell which now considers correlation functions on the boundary of
topology contributed to the observation, any more than one AdS, one again finds that there is apparent information loss
can tell which slit the electron went through in the two slits in the small black hole solution but in fact information is
experiment. All that observation at infinity can determine preserved by topologically trivial geometries. Another way
is that there is a unitary mapping from initial states to final of seeing that information is preserved in the formation and
and that information is not lost. evaporation of small black holes is that the entropy in the
box does not increase steadily with time as it would if
information were lost each time a small black hole formed
V. SMALL BLACK HOLES and evaporated.
Giant black holes are stable and will not evaporate away.
However, small black holes are unstable and behave like VI. CONCLUSIONS
black holes in asymptotically flat space if M 1=2
[8]. However, in the approach I am using, one can not just In this paper, I have argued that quantum gravity is
set up a small black hole and watch it evaporate. All one unitary and information is preserved in black hole forma-
tion and evaporation. I assume the evolution is given by a
can do is to consider correlation functions of operators at
Euclidean path integral over metrics of all topologies. The
infinity. One can apply a large number of operators at
integral over topologically trivial metrics can be done by
infinity, weighted with time functions, that in the classical
dividing the time interval into thin slices and using a linear
limit would create a spherical ingoing wave from infinity,
interpolation to the metric in each slice. The integral over
that in the classical theory would form a small black hole.
each slice will be unitary and so the whole path integral
This would presumably then evaporate away.
will be unitary.
For years, I tried to think of a Euclidean geometry that
On the other hand, the path integral over topologically
could represent the formation and evaporation of a single nontrivial metrics will lose information and will be asymp-
black hole, but without success. I now realize there is no totically independent of its initial conditions. Thus the total
such geometry, only the eternal black hole, and pair crea- path integral will be unitary and quantum mechanics is
tion of black holes, followed by their annihilation. The pair safe.
creation case is instructive. The Euclidean geometry can be How does information get out of a black hole? My work
regarded as a black hole moving on a closed loop, as one with Hartle [9] showed the radiation could be thought of as
would expect. However, the corresponding Lorentzian ge- tunnelling out from inside the black hole. It was therefore
ometry, represents two black holes that come in from not unreasonable to suppose that it could carry information
infinity in the infinite past, and accelerate away from out of the black hole. This explains how a black hole can
each other for ever. The moral of this is that one should form and then give out the information about what is inside
not take the Lorentzian analytic continuation of a it while remaining topologically trivial. There is no baby
Euclidean geometry literally as a guide to what an observer universe branching off, as I once thought. The information
would see. Similarly, the formation and evaporation of a remains firmly in our universe. I am sorry to disappoint
small black hole, and the subsequent formation of small science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is
black holes from the thermal radiation, should be repre- no possibility of using black holes to travel to other uni-
sented by a superposition of trivial metrics and eternal verses. If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will
black holes. The probability of observing a small black be returned to our universe but in a mangled form which
hole, at a given time, is given by the difference between the contains the information about what you were like but in a
actions. A similar discussion of correlation functions on state where it can not be easily recognized. It is like
the boundary shows that the topologically trivial metrics burning an encyclopedia. Information is not lost, if one
make black hole formation and evaporation unitary and keeps the smoke and the ashes. But it is difficult to read. In
information preserving. One can restrict to small black practice, it would be too difficult to rebuild a macroscopic
holes by integrating the path integral over along a object like an encyclopedia that fell inside a black hole
contour parallel to the imaginary axis with the factor from information in the radiation, but the information
084013-3
S. W. HAWKING PHYSICAL REVIEW D 72, 084013 (2005)
preserving result is important for microscopic processes hair theorem. One cannot ask when the information
involving virtual black holes. If these had not been unitary, gets out of a black hole because that would require the
there would have been observable effects, like the decay of use of a semiclassical metric which has already lost the
baryons. information.
There is a problem describing what happens because In 1997, Kip Thorne and I bet John Preskill that infor-
strictly speaking, the only observables in quantum gravity mation was lost in black holes. The loser or losers of the bet
are the values of the field at infinity. One can not define the were to provide the winner or winners with an encyclope-
field at some point in the middle because there is quantum dia of their own choice, from which information can be
uncertainty in where the measurement is done. What is recovered with ease. I gave John an encyclopedia of base-
often done is to adopt the semiclassical approximation in ball, but maybe I should just have given him the ashes.
which one assumes that there are a large number N of light
matter fields coupled to gravity and that one can neglect the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
gravitational fluctuations because they are only one among
I am very grateful to my student, Christophe Galfard
N quantum loops. However, in ignoring quantum loops,
[10], for help and discussions. He is working on a proof
one throws away unitarity. A semiclassical metric is in a
that correlation functions decay in topologically nontrivial
mixed state already. The information loss corresponds to
metrics.
the classical relaxation of black holes according to the no
[1] W. Israel, Phys. Rev. 164, 1776 (1967); W. Israel, (2000); and see E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253
Commun. Math. Phys. 8, 245 (1968). (1998) for the holographic point of view.
[2] B. Carter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 331 (1971); S. W. Hawking, [6] For an introduction, see Euclidean Quantum Gravity,
Commun. Math. Phys. 25, 152 (1972); D. C. Robinson, edited by G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, (World
Phys. Rev. D 10, 458 (1974); D. C. Robinson, Phys. Rev. Scientific, Singapore, 1993).
Lett. 34, 905 (1975). [7] J. Maldacena, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2003) 21.
[3] S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975). [8] S. W. Hawking and D. N. Page, Commun. Math. Phys. 87,
[4] S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 14, 2460 (1976). 577 (1983); E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 505
[5] J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998); (1998).
Int. J. Theor. Phys. 38, 1113 (1999); S. S. Gubser, I. R. [9] J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 13, 2188
Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B 428, 105 (1976).
(1998); and a classic review: O. Aharony, J. Maldacena, [10] Electronic address: [email protected]
S. Gubser, H. O. Oguri, and Y. Oz, Phys. Rep. 323, 183
084013-4