Classical Theory by S. W. Hawking

size the curvature outside the horizons will be everywhere small compared to the Planck

scale. This means the approximation I have made of ignoring cubic and higher terms in

the perturbations should be good. Thus the conclusion that information can be lost in

black holes should be reliable.

38

If information is lost in macroscopic black holes it should also be lost in processes in which microscopic, virtual black holes appear because of quantum fluctuations of the

metric. One could imagine that particles and information could fall into these holes and

get lost. Maybe that is where all those odd socks went. Quantities like energy and electric

charge, that are coupled to gauge fields, would be conserved but other information and

global charge would be lost. This would have far reaching implications for quantum theory.

It is normally assumed that a system in a pure quantum state evolves in a unitary way

through a succession of pure quantum states. But if there is loss of information through the

appearance and disappearance of black holes there can’t be a unitary evolution. Instead

the loss of information will mean that the final state after the black holes have disappeared will be what is called a mixed quantum state. This can be regarded as an ensemble of

different pure quantum states each with its own probability. But because it is not with

certainty in any one state one can not reduce the probability of the final state to zero

by interfering with any quantum state. This means that gravity introduces a new level

of unpredictability into physics over and above the uncertainty usually associated with

quantum theory. I shall show in the next lecture we may have already observed this extra

uncertainty. It means an end to the hope of scientific determinism that we could predict

the future with certainty. It seems God still has a few tricks up his sleeve.

A

A A

A

A A

AA

39

3. Quantum Cosmology

S. W. Hawking

In my third lecture I shall turn to cosmology. Cosmology used to be considered a

pseudo-science and the preserve of physicists who may have done useful work in their

earlier years but who had gone mystic in their dotage. There were two reasons for this.

The first was that there was an almost total absence of reliable observations. Indeed,

until the 1920s about the only important cosmological observation was that the sky at

night is dark. But people didn’t appreciate the significance of this. However, in recent

years the range and quality of cosmological observations has improved enormously with

developments in technology. So this objection against regarding cosmology as a science,

that it doesn’t have an observational basis is no longer valid.

There is, however, a second and more serious objection. Cosmology can not predict

anything about the universe unless it makes some assumption about the initial conditions.

Without such an assumption, all one can say is that things are as they are now because

they were as they were at an earlier stage. Yet many people believe that science should be

concerned only with the local laws which govern how the universe evolves in time. They

would feel that the boundary conditions for the universe that determine how the universe

began were a question for metaphysics or religion rather than science.

The situation was made worse by the theorems that Roger and I proved. These

showed that according to general relativity there should be a singularity in our past. At

this singularity the field equations could not be defined. Thus classical general relativity

brings about its own downfall: it predicts that it can’t predict the universe.

Although many people welcomed this conclusion, it has always profoundly disturbed

me. If the laws of physics could break down at the begining of the universe, why couldn’t

they break down any where. In quantum theory it is a principle that anything can happen if

it is not absolutely forbidden. Once one allows that singular histories could take part in the path integral they could occur any where and predictability would disappear completely.

If the laws of physics break down at singularities, they could break down any where.

The only way to have a scientific theory is if the laws of physics hold everywhere

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Leave a Reply 0

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *