Back to the phenomenologist philosophy eh! .. To those a physical world does not exist… everything is a perceptual phenomenon. Needless to say I am not one of those followers. I work in a physical world that I can "touch" and "sense" …. some call it reality or down to earth.

My boyfriend has been trying to explain this crap to me for years. I find it to be fascinating. Hopefully our children will get his brain and my looks/sense of humor.

So, can someone explain in the simplest terms what they mean by information/quantum information? I understand if the Hubble traveled too close to a black hole it would cease to exist, and obviously data could not be transmitted back to us after that. So, when they mean information, do they mean the inability to retrieve information post event horizon? How would we really know that information could not escape? Could it just be distorted, misplaced somewhere like to an inhabitant living in NGC 5078?

This is the only conclusion to explain the fast moving objects near the centers of galaxies.
The two reasons are
1. There is not much visible light at the center of galaxies.
2. The speed of objects orbiting near the center of galaxies appears to be very high.

The red and blue shifts of rotating objects and gas clouds on either side of the center would produce
the standard rotation curves. From which it is observed that there is very high red shifts and therefore
very high velocities near the center.

But if there is a massive black hole, should not there be an additional red shift near black hole,
superimposed on the velocity red and blue shifts which would make the rotation curves appear
lop sided? May be the deduced high velocities are wrong.

According to my work, singularities are impossible because I derive the limits on gravity and inertia
See cosmicdarkmatter.com for a partial hint.

We have been told that aong many things nothing can escape Black holes. This may be true but for one property of plasma that allows it to form double layers and a Z-pinch within compacted matter core that can create electromagnetic fields ejecting matter via jets from the core itself. So! the BH creates the process and the drive to eject matter, no other process can produce enough power to do so.

This is only true if you see time as a linear entity. An outstander, not in our fixed interpretation of linear time, might look at the snowflake as 'the top of a mountain' and all other states (the vapor) as a way up to the top. Maybe all states will eventually lead to the snowflake, if you take away the 'time' limitation.

(sorry about my bad english…)

What you are saying is very interesting, or rather Landauer's discovery is very fascinating. I cannot disagree with the point you are relaying here as I understand what you are saying about the principle to be true in so much as it makes sense to me. However, at the same time I have to contend that sense with further curiosity in understanding why it is that a transformation from a solid into a liquid brings about the loss of information.
Currently I understand the transformation. I also understand the consequences of this transformation, and think that the theory makes sense, yet I do also feel a begging question of 'why anyways' in my head.
It seems that I have an issue with accepting the nature of things, in that I percieve the natural processes to make sense yet be limiting.
More simply put, I understand what happens, but think more so about the idea that it does not have to happen that way. At the same time I am not contending that I or anyone at this point knows another way to change those natural processes that the principle defines.
I feel forced to think of how that snowflake's information may never be lost. Perhaps if we were to find that it's information were stored in places other than where we currently know it to be we could have this happen. In this possibility the principle would apply only to the observations we currently have and have less presumption over the truth as we percieve it.
I cannot disagree with what we know, but what we do not know could drastically alter the implications of what we know, and perhaps significantly minimalize them.

According to Wikipedia; "Information itself may be loosely defined as "that which can distinguish one thing from another".

The information embodied by a thing can thus be said to be the identity of the particular thing itself, that is, all of its properties, all that makes it distinct from other (real or potential) things."

Information can be defined by a physical principle called Landauer’s principle, which says that to erase 1 bit of information irreversibly at least k ln(2) entropy should be increased and at least kT ln(2) energy should be consumed, where k is the Boltzman’s constant and T is the temperature of a thermal bath. Thus any physical process could, at least in principle, be formulated in terms of its information content (in bits) just as it could be formulated in terms of its energy or entropy.

For physical systems we must distinguish between classical information and quantum information. Quantum information specifies the complete quantum state vector (or equivalently, wavefunction) of a system, whereas classical information, roughly speaking, only picks out a definite (pure) quantum state if we are already given a pre-specified set of distinguishable (orthogonal) quantum states to choose from; such a set forms a basis for the vector space of all the possible pure quantum states. (Quantum states can be statistically mixed, corresponding to an experiment involving a random change of the parameters. States obtained in this way are called mixed states, as opposed to pure states which cannot be described as a mixture of others.)

The usual view has been that a black hole takes a state described by a set of eigenvalues and coefficients, a large set of numbers, and transforms it into a state described by temperature, one number. All the other structure of the state was lost in the transformation.

in other words: "information" means "knowledge"? Or, the possibility to know what had happened to matter and energy and why it has the current state. And this knowledge is not made impossible by a stay of the observed object inside of a Black Hole.

So maybe we already experience "information" that has been in a Black Hole and which now is already back to normal space-time.

"…'Information' consists of the sum total of matter and energy, and all of the transitional states in between. The last bit is the most critical. Causality in physics requires that you be able to reconstruct what you had before using what you have now."

Okay, so till Ashtekar it was thought that if a Black Holes comes across our way, "causality" ( which equals information) is sucked into a realm which is forever strictly prohibited for human perception of cause and effect. So the method of falsification is not applicable any longer and that what is does enter a state of metaphysics.

Ashtekar now claims that information might "reappear in the distant future on the other side of what was first thought to be the end of space-time".

Does this mean a time travel into the future for every piece of "information" (matter, energy) ever dunked into any Black Hole? Just to rise like a phoenix?

Besides, there is no evidence to suggest that a black hole has any unusual properties. It is only by assumption that all of the matter accumulated in bodies greater than the size of a star would be not only be luminescent but as luminescent. Rather than trapping light, isnt it more plausible that light simply isnt being produced?

We don't directly detect the black hole, just it's effects on everything around it. (Even gravitationally, we just watch other things wobble, warp, or wiz by.)

Hawking caused problems when he suggested that the gravity well around a black hole emitted "Hawking radiation". As the radiation came from around the black hole, and not from the object itself, the information contained in the Hawking radiation has no connection with all of the stuff that fell into the black hole, breaking causality and causing information to be lost.

As the article says, Hawking eventually reversed he position on the paradox that he created for it. What the article does not say is how he chose to explain it. Hawking proposed that there must be infinte parallel realities. In some of them, the black hole exists and the information is lost. In others, the black hole does not develop and the information is not lost. So as long as there is a parallel relaity out there somewhere where a given bit of information does not fall into a black hole, causality is not broken, and physicists can sleep at night.