Black hole remnants and classical vs. quantum gravity

Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2001 (3):S407- (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Belot, Earman, and Ruetsche (1999) dismiss the black hole remnant proposal as an inadequate response to the Hawking information loss paradox. I argue that their criticisms are misplaced and that, properly understood, remnants do offer a substantial reply to the argument against the possibility of unitary evolution in spacetimes that contain evaporating black holes. The key to understanding these proposals lies in recognizing that the question of where and how our current theories break down is at the heart of these debates in quantum gravity. I also argue that the controversial nature of assessing the limits of general relativity and quantum field theory illustrates the significance of attempts to establish the proper borders of our effective theories.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,347

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
63 (#258,219)

6 months
12 (#221,514)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Peter Bokulich
University of Notre Dame

Citations of this work

Philosophy of Space‐Time Physics.Craig Callender & Carl Hoefer - 2002 - In Peter Machamer & Michael Silberstein (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. pp. 173–198.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Hawking Information Loss Paradox: The Anatomy of a Controversy.Gordon Belot, John Earman & Laura Ruetsche - 1999 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50 (2):189-229.

Add more references