A simplified derivation of stimulated emission by black holes
ABSTRACT A black hole, when acting as a scatterer for quanta in a single mode of a massless scalar field, is known to convert any ingoing Gibbs state of that mode into an outgoing Gibbs state (with some other mean particle number). The author presents a simple derivation for this property, which may help to clarify what relation, if any, it bears to the microscopic structure of the black hole horizon.
- SourceAvailable from: Greg Ver Steeg[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The fate of classical information incident on a quantum black hole has been the subject of an ongoing controversy in theoretical physics, because a calculation within the framework of semi-classical curved-space quantum field theory appears to show that the incident information is irretrievably lost, in contradiction to time-honored principles such as time-reversibility and unitarity. Here, we show within this framework embedded in quantum communication theory that signaling from past to future infinity in the presence of a Schwarzschild black hole can occur with arbitrary accuracy, and thus that classical information is not lost in black hole dynamics. The calculation relies on a treatment that is manifestly unitary from the outset, where probability conservation is guaranteed because black holes stimulate the emission of radiation in response to infalling matter. This stimulated radiation is non-thermal, and contains all of the information about the infalling matter, while Hawking radiation contains none of it.08/2004;
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although we have convincing evidence that a black hole bears an entropy proportional to its surface (horizon) area, the ``statistical mechanical'' explanation of this entropy remains unknown. Two basic questions in this connection are: what is the microscopic origin of the entropy, and why does the law of entropy increase continue to hold when the horizon entropy is included? After a review of some of the difficulties in answering these questions, I propose an explanation of the law of entropy increase which comes near to a proof in the context of the ``semi-classical'' approximation, and which also provides a proof in full quantum gravity under the assumption that the latter fulfills certain natural expectations, like the existence of a conserved energy definable at infinity. This explanation seems to require a fundamental spacetime discreteness in order for the entropy to be consistently finite, and I recall briefly some of the ideas for what the discreteness might be. If such ideas are right, then our knowledge of the horizon entropy will allow us to ``count the atoms of spacetime''.06/1997;
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We consider the question raised by Unruh and Wald of whether mirrored boxes can self-accelerate in flat spacetime (the ``self-accelerating box paradox''). From the point of view of the box, which perceives the acceleration as an impressed gravitational field, this is equivalent to asking whether the box can be supported by the buoyant force arising from its immersion in a perceived bath of thermal (Unruh) radiation. The perfect mirrors we study are of the type that rely on light internal degrees of freedom which adjust to and reflect impinging radiation. We suggest that a minimum of one internal mirror degree of freedom is required for each bulk field degree of freedom reflected. A short calculation then shows that such mirrors necessarily absorb enough heat from the thermal bath that their increased mass prevents them from floating on the thermal radiation. For this type of mirror the paradox is therefore resolved. We also observe that this failure of boxes to ``float'' invalidates one of the assumptions going into the Unruh-Wald analysis of entropy balances involving boxes lowered adiabatically toward black holes. Nevertheless, their broad argument can be maintained until the box reaches a new regime in which box-antibox pairs dominate over massless fields as contributions to thermal radiation. Comment: 11 pages, Revtex4, changes made in response to referee and to enhance clarity, discussion of massive fields correctedPhysical Review D 01/2002; · 4.69 Impact Factor