Tell me more ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I really can't understand what Leonard Susskind means when he says that information is indestructible.

Is that information really recoverable?

He himself said that entropy is hidden information. Then, although the information hidden has measurable effects, I think it cannot be retrieved. So, if it were unrecoverable, then why is that not a synonym for being destroyed?

Black holes can be used in answers, but, as he proposes this as a general law of physics, I would prefer any hint on it without needed references to black holes.

share|improve this question
1  
The information is lost to our perception, but it's still there in the universe. – Jeremy May 29 '12 at 16:54
4  
This is tied to the unitarity of QM evolutions. – Raskolnikov May 29 '12 at 16:57
This is very vague and impossible to answer. Is it based on a popularization? – Ben Crowell Apr 19 at 23:25
I think he means time evolution is invertible... in other words, +1 @Raskolnikov comment. – becko Apr 20 at 0:55

2 Answers

I don't know in which context Susskind mentioned this, but he probably meant time evolution is unitary. That means, among other things, that it's reversible, ie no information can ever get lost because you can essentially, starting from any time (time-like slice), run time backwards (theoretically) and compute what happened earlier.

If black hole evolution was indeed perfectly thermal, it would violate unitarity and information would be lost indeed. Susskind, I believe, thinks that this is not the case.

share|improve this answer
What I've tried to highlight in my question is the fact that in practice you can not compute it, and I am not talking only about the impossibility of 'compute measurements' but even for quantum state (of an enough complex real system) because it has to be specified then you will need measurements to start with, so the whole state will be neither computable. The statement "information is indestructible" is a strange one, I would like to understand what it refers to, My question is how an 'hypothetical information' not recoverable by any mean can be still called information? – HDE May 30 '12 at 12:33
I think you're reading too much into words. As I said, I guess he was probably just talking about unitarity. – WIMP Dec 24 '12 at 10:46

Like many people have said here, he's probably talking about unitarity. Susskind is echoing the general view among physicists. I don't think we have (yet) a concrete way to even precisely formulate the principle, leave alone any kind of proof. But based on unitarity in quantum mechanics and (for what it's worth) physical intuition about gravity, it seems like the sensible thing would be for information content to be conserved.

A simple illustration of this principle would be the no-cloning theorem. The way I see it, it says that you can't destroy the information in the register (the qubit into which you cant to copy some information) in a way consistent with unitary evolution. If you managed to do it, then you should be able to invert the unitary evolution and generate the information from the register which you're supposed to have destroyed.

As for hidden information, think of it as being temporarily hidden. When some information is inside the black hole, you can't access that information and the black hole has a corresponding entropy. When the black hole evaporates away, there is nothing left to contain the entropy, so the information must have been sent out somehow and it's now un-hidden (or so it's believed, as of today). Again, I don't think there's a concrete calculation to establish this definitively -- mainly since we don't have a good handle on quantum gravity.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.