Slashdot Mirror
Famous Hawking Black Hole Bet Resolved?
Mick Ohrberg writes "In 1997 the three cosmologists Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne and John Preskill made a famous bet as to whether information that enters a black hole ceases to exist -- that is, whether the interior of a black hole is changed at all by the characteristics of particles that enter it. It now looks like Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne may owe John Preskill a set of encyclopedias of his choice, since physicists at Ohio State University 'have derived an extensive set of equations that strongly suggest that the information continues to exist -- bound up in a giant tangle of strings that fills a black hole from its core to its surface.'"
and he looks really pissed about it too.
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
"Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne may owe John Preskill a set of encyclopedias of his choice"
Do they take Wiki?
Yikes! Sounds like all information that enters a black hole turns into spaghetti code!!! The horror! The horror!
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
In my physics experience, coincidence typically means you got the right answer... unless it's a test question, in which case you're probably wrong.
To follow knowledge like a sinking star, / Beyond the utmost bound of human thought. ("Ulysses", Tennyson)
No, NO, Space_Cowboy, you have got it ALL WRONG.
Now I want you to repeat after me:
- First
- Post
- !
I say we send someone to find out for sure... Darl, you interested?
Now, I forgot what it was that I thought I knew.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
the information in the black hole, we'll finally find Amelia Earhart. And Jimmy Hoffa. And hundreds of millions of socks. And Duke Nukem Forever.
> Unless I'm missing something here? Cosmologists?
"Is there a cosmologist in the house? Anyone? My god, get this man a cosmologist!"
Sounds like the back of my desk!
"Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
I found that in physics, going with 'common' sense or your gut was a good way to look stupid while making it obvious that you didn't review the lecture material the night before.
On the flip side, the math always did a hell of a job predicting the outcome of experiments.
FAT32 is a pretty good data singularity, goes in but won't come back out
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
*raises hand*
Slashdot, where information goes to die.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I have to change careers. These physicists (sp?) have just created the biggest manefestation of a quantom physics illustration ever (namely scrondiggers (sp?) cat). The black hole is the box, the information entering the event horizon is the cat. Anything at the singularity is not observable and is therefore in a permanent state of flux between states (not really, but our ignorance of what's going on creates that condition). When we make observation our predispositions on the data influence the observation and change the reality. In other words YOU CAN'T BE WRONG NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY!
Is there some way I can get this gig?
It doesn't matter what you wrap your emotions around, Reality is a brick wall specifically designed to scramble eggs
Damn that peer review. The Nobel board laughed at me when my theory was submited, but I'll show them. Yes, I'll show them.
Mwuhhahahahahahha!
KFG
Because you are right, your loose definition of tautology is true.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Will it come with a free bottle of correction fluid and a pen?
Decompression support expected in next WinZip release.
Canthros
However, there is no proof that any of the information survives, after being caught up in red tape. Indeed, all evidence so far suggests that it does not.
(Beurocracy particles are a subclass of Strange Quarks that have beeen influenced by a politic Ion)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"What's the most expensive encyclopedia you've ever seen?"
Other way:
a = b + c
a(a - b) = (b + c)(a - b)
aa - ab = ba - bb + ac - bc
aa - ab - ac = ba - bb - bc
a(a - b - c) = b(a - b - c)
a = b
Now:
5 = 4 + 1
This is undoubtedly true, and it's the first equation with a = 5, b = 4, c = 1.
Therefore also the last equation is true:
5 = 4
Finally, use that equation with
2 + 2 = 4
and you've got
2 + 2 = 5
quod erat demonstrandum.
Now, to proof that we have really truth, let's proof the central equation (i.e. 5 = 4) again in a completely different way:
-20 = -20 (obviously true)
25 - 45 = 16 - 36 (just rewrote the numbers as differences)
25 - 45 + 81/4 = 16 - 36 + 81/4 (added 81/4 on both sides)
(5 - 9/2)^2 = (4 - 9/2)^2 (used binomic formula)
5 - 9/2 = 4 - 9/2 (took the square root)
5 = 4 (added 9/2 on both sides)
So, agan we have 5 = 4, using a completely diffferent proof. Now, this clearly shows 5 = 4 is true, and therefore also 2 + 2 = 5.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.