[jeffreyH (OP)]

OK, a bit of a tabloid headline title. On to the crux. If we continually entangled photon pairs, sending one into a black hole and the other to a detector, would we be solving the information paradox? Or just wasting our time?

[Colin2B]

If we continually entangled photon pairs, sending one into a black hole and the other to a detector, would we be solving the information paradox? Or just wasting our time?

It depends what we want to do.
The detector will tell us what information we sent into the black hole, but it won’t bring it back out ie access what is in there.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

If we continually entangled photon pairs, sending one into a black hole and the other to a detector, would we be solving the information paradox? Or just wasting our time?

It depends what we want to do.
The detector will tell us what information we sent into the black hole, but it won’t bring it back out ie access what is in there.

We know what state the photons are in when they cross the horizon by detecting the other photon. For a large enough black hole the horizon has no significant tidal forces so we can expect the state of the photon to persist until it interacts with other objects falling towards the singularity. We then also know something about the photons potential interactions with other objects. This is not what the information paradox tells us.

[evan_au]

would a non zero photon mass transition into an anti particle with an altered spin of -1?

A photon is its own anti-particle, so it doesn't need to transition into anything else.

All photons have a spin of 1. Anti-photon does not have a spin of -1.

However, there are two separate circular polarization states, distinguishable by their angular momentum (positive & negative).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties

[set fair]

If the measurement is done when one of the pair is in the black hole, or it's almost reached the event horizon then you could hope to find a nonrandom sequence of measurements.

[Colin2B]

we can expect the state of the photon to persist until it interacts with other objects falling towards the singularity.

Including decoherence?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

we can expect the state of the photon to persist until it interacts with other objects falling towards the singularity.

Including decoherence?

Well somebody had to spoil it. Lol!

[jeffreyH (OP)]

This is actually an active area of research.


https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.05677

[yor_on]

This was surprisingly new to me so I had to look it up. https://www.quora.com/What-is-gravitational-decoherence?

" In the 1980s some very clever work suggested another possibility (this is introduced by Zeh I think, back in the early 70s). It doesn’t completely solve the problem either, but it gives a much nicer work-around than the ‘consciousness’ one. The basic idea is that the weirdness of the QM description depends on the different parts of that wave function being ‘coherent’ (sort of in synch with each other). But when the system interacts with other things that will dissipate the match-up between these states… metaphorically the quantum weirdness dissipates into the environment when the system and its surroundings interact. This ‘dilutes’ the quantum aspects to the point where we see a ‘classical’ world. (I am, by the way, going to spend extra time in physics-purgatory when I die for using such metaphors… but they are not entirely wrong). "

Looking some more I found this https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.1095 " Universal decoherence due to gravitational time dilation "

I'm not sure how to look at this yet.
=

But yes, it could be a sort of confirmation, possibly, arguably :)  of the way I look at 'local clocks', defining them as 'equivalent' no matter how they will reach different result relative some agreed upon 'external clock', but then one also would need to incorporate SR in it. Pretty weird stuff but making sense in a way, allowing 'time' to be a result of decoherence.

Still? I don't know. It's one thing looking at 'vibrations' then defining them to a 'clock like' behavior versus 'time' by itself. A approach in where you use superpositions, vibrations etc, to define 'time' is not the law but more of a result of it, as it seems to me. You could argue that 'time' as a law is non existent unless we introduce 'systems' of for example particles but I don't think that is the answer.

A alternative would be to define the state of a superposition as 'time less' until broken down, but the problem I see with that is that we still need particles, systems, forces and decoherence for it. It's about origins to me, for decoherence (and superpositions) to 'dissolve', if I may say so, into a 'macroscopically' stable configuration you still need 'time'.

the real enigma might be said to be that we don't really know what decoherence is, as far as I get it. We have a mathematical foundation but it is based on how nature seem to work, and that is not the same as understanding it. Statistics paint the world, but? And then build even more on what one don't really understand seems rather fragile to me.

Also, it seems to me as a circular argument in 'where' time could be restricted to decoherence 'breaking down', but by what?
Time?

so then it should mean that a super position in some magical way interact with itself even when isolated from other influences, aka no 'interactions'. And then, btw, it is 'interacting' even in this 'super position' and can not be looked at as being 'time less'. Decoherence builds on interactions.

[yor_on]

I think the problem can be sized down to whether you think 'time' is a function of interactions, or not. If you think it is interactions that creates our macroscopic' time' then you've touched upon 'local clocks' but not upon what allows for it to interact.

[Colin2B]

This was surprisingly new to me so I had to look it up. https://www.quora.com/What-is-gravitational-decoherence?

Quora is not always reliable on the quality of posters so you need to use other sources to get a good picture eg physicsstackexchange, Physicsforums, etc .
This gives a good overview of decoherence. https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath573/kmath573.htm

[yor_on]

I don't agree Collin.
Using a 'gas' to define a Big Bang seems not good enough

'You have to look at how it is defined, everywhere, doesn't matter if you call it a 'new patch' or a 'old'
You will get the same figures.

[yor_on]

I better add this
Using 'fishbowls' of 'old light' the assumption today is that your SpaceTime position doesn't matter for your measurements.
Isn't that strange?
=
And yeah, of course you can backtrack your own 'fishbowl'
And so can all the others.
=

Hmm,  I overreacted :)
Sorry Colin, it's a nice description of coherence, with me discussing a Big Bang instead..
Math pages is indeed a good source...