The black hole information paradox remains one of the most profound unsolved problems in modern theoretical physics. Traditionally, it is assumed that information falling into a black hole is lost forever when the black hole evaporates, seemingly violating the principles of quantum mechanics.

In his new work, Vladimir M. Tsenov offers a radically different perspective. He argues that the paradox arises from the mistaken assumption that information is absolutely objective and independent of the observer. According to Tsenov, information is fundamentally observer-dependent: what appears inaccessible or “lost” to one observer may still be present for another.

Tsenov reformulates the paradox, shifting the focus from the loss of information to the observer-dependent inaccessibility of information. This subtle but profound shift has deep philosophical and physical implications, challenging how we understand quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the role of the observer in the universe.

This article is not just a new proposal—it invites a complete rethinking of fundamental concepts concerning information, observation, and the nature of reality itself. For anyone interested in theoretical physics, the philosophy of science, or the deepest laws of the universe, the full text provides detailed analysis and arguments that cannot be overlooked.

Read the full article here: The Observer-Centric Reformulation of the Black Hole Information Paradox

Edited August 25Aug 25 by Vladimir M. Tsenov

29 minutes ago, Vladimir M. Tsenov said:

This subtle but profound shift has deep philosophical and physical implications, challenging how we understand quantum mechanics, general relativity, and the role of the observer in the universe

How about listing some of these implications so that we may discuss them without having to read the paper you linked ?

Moderator Note

Rules require that material for discussion be actually posted here. Not via links or uploads.

The Observer-Centric Reformulation of the Black Hole Information Paradox

Vladimir M. Tsenov

Independent Researcher

Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Abstract

The classical formulation of Hawking's black hole information paradox assumes that information is an objective, observer-independent property of physical states. This paper argues that such a premise is both philosophically and physically incomplete, contradicting the epistemological essence of information and the fundamental role of the observer in quantum mechanics. Information, properly understood, requires the possibility of perception or decoding. By recasting the paradox from a question of "objective information loss" to one of observational inaccessibility, we propose an observer-centric reformulation that offers a path toward a new interpretation of black hole information dynamics.

Keywords: Black Hole Information Paradox, Observer Effect, Quantum Mechanics, Epistemology of Information, Relational Quantum Mechanics

1. Introduction

The black hole information paradox (Hawking, 1976) remains one of the most debated problems at the intersection of physics and philosophy. Traditional approaches—ranging from holography (’t Hooft, Susskind) to the firewall hypothesis—treat information as an objective property of physical states, potentially lost through black hole evaporation. This treatment presupposes that information can exist independently of any observer.

However, both the philosophy of knowledge and the foundations of quantum mechanics challenge this assumption. Information is not merely a physical arrangement of states; it requires interpretability. Quantum theory further reinforces this dependency by making observation fundamental to the manifestation of states. This paper argues that ignoring the observer in the information paradox leads to a conceptual incompleteness. The following sections will critically examine the prevailing views on information, propose an observer-centric reformulation of the paradox, and discuss the theoretical implications of this new perspective.

2. Classical and Quantum Notions of Information

In classical physics, information is regarded as an objective arrangement of matter-energy states. For a classical observer, information can be stored or lost independently of whether it is ever decoded. This perspective allows for the paradox of "absolute loss."

In contrast, an epistemological and quantum definition of information suggests that it exists as a potential that becomes real only through measurement or perception. The uncertainty principle and the collapse of the wave function illustrate that informational content is inseparable from observation. For instance, the position of a particle is not a fixed, objective fact but a relational property that becomes defined only upon measurement. Thus, the very meaning of "information" depends on relational and observer-dependent contexts.

3. Reformulating the Information Paradox

The conventional paradox is framed as a direct contradiction:

Quantum theory requires unitarity (information cannot be destroyed).

Hawking radiation appears thermal and featureless, implying information loss.

Therefore, a contradiction arises.

We propose a different framework by integrating the observer as a fundamental element:

Premise (R1): Information cannot exist independently of an observer capable of perceiving or decoding it.

Premise (R2): Quantum measurement already integrates the observer as fundamental.

Conclusion (R3): The question of "objective information loss" in black holes is ill-posed, because it presupposes observer-independent information.

Instead, the paradox should be recast: How does the observer’s relational role in quantum information affect the interpretation of black hole evaporation? This shift transforms the problem from an apparent violation of fundamental laws to a deeper inquiry into the nature of informational reality itself.

4. Implications

The observer-centric view offers several key implications for the information paradox:

Conceptual Resolution: The paradox is not about the absolute loss of information but about the conditions under which information is meaningful and accessible. If information is relational, then the perceived loss is a consequence of the observer's inability to retrieve it from beyond the event horizon, not a true disappearance from the universe. The information hasn't been destroyed; it has simply become observationally inaccessible to a particular frame of reference.

Alignment with Relational Frameworks: This view aligns directly with relational quantum mechanics (Rovelli, 1996), where physical states—and thus information—exist only relative to observers. A particle falling into a black hole may have a defined state from the perspective of an observer falling with it, while for an outside observer, that information has become unknowable.

Bridging Physics and Epistemology: This approach bridges physics and epistemology, suggesting that the notion of information as an independent entity is a classical remnant inconsistent with quantum theory. The paradox serves as a powerful reminder that our physical models must account for the fundamental role of the observer.

A Secondary Paradox: Recent developments in Vortex Field Theory (VFT) propose that black hole radiation is coherent and information-rich, generated by vortex instabilities in a structured quantum vacuum. Even within such frameworks, however, information recoverability may face practical limits—what we call a "secondary information paradox"—due to gravitational reabsorption and the exponential dilution of emitted signals, making much of the encoded information observationally inaccessible.

5. Conclusion

The observer-centric reformulation dissolves the classical framing of Hawking’s information paradox. By recognizing that information is inseparable from observation, the paradox shifts from an apparent violation of unitarity to a deeper inquiry into the relational nature of quantum states and their epistemological foundations. Future research should explore formal models of black hole evaporation that explicitly incorporate observer-dependent definitions of information and account for practical limits to information retrieval, paving the way for a more complete understanding of black hole dynamics.

References

Hawking, S. W. (1976). Black holes and thermodynamics. Physical Review D, 14(10), 2460–2473.

Rovelli, C. (1996). Relational quantum mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 35(8), 1637–1678.

Susskind, L. (1995). The world as a hologram. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 36(11), 6377–6396.

’t Hooft, G. (1993). Dimensional reduction in quantum gravity. arXiv:gr-qc/9310026.

Tsenov, V. M. (2025). A Secondary Information Paradox in the Context of Vortex Field Theory: Practical Limits to Information Retrieval from Black Hole Radiation. Available via Academia.edu .

© 2025 Vladimir Tsenov This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

If

1 hour ago, Vladimir M. Tsenov said:

Information cannot exist independently of an observer capable of perceiving or decoding it.

then the argument becomes that information is 'hidden' for some observers, but not all, to preserve QM's unitarity condition.

Does this not, then, introduce the concept of 'preferred observer', and that Physical Laws may differ for different observers/different locations/different times ?
IOW, 'fixing' the information paradox wrecks Physics.
( out of the frying pan, into the fire )

There is an Ai feel to this plus recent work has not been cited. 1996 the latest?

3 hours ago, Vladimir M. Tsenov said:

Quantum theory further reinforces this dependency by making observation fundamental to the manifestation of states.

This is an old myth. "Observing" is not a part of quantum mechanics. Interaction through entanglement is.

4 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

There is an Ai feel to this

The word that 'triggers' suspicion of AI usage for me is 'framework'.
As in

7 hours ago, Vladimir M. Tsenov said:

We propose a different framework by integrating the observer as a fundamental element

11 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

There is an Ai feel to this plus recent work has not been cited. 1996 the latest?

Agreed.