Famous Hawking Black Hole Bet Resolved?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Famous Hawking Black Hole Bet Resolved?

Posted by simoniker on Monday March 1, 2004 @10:30AM from the brittanica-please dept.

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.'"

35 of 400 comments (clear)

Hawking radiation by Space+cowboy · 2004-03-01 10:30 · Score: 5, Informative

Steven had posited in the 70's that the black holes leak (Hawking radiation), but the paradox is that they radiate a 'black-body' spectrum (entirely thermal radiation) in inverse proportion to their mass (so as they get smaller, the radiation increases). The problem here is that all the information went in, but it's very difficult to infer information from a black-body radiated spectrum (!). Steven therefore thinks that information is lost forever.

The article though is a bit hand-wavy over why the information is preserved in this new theory... (I guess Nth dimensional maths doesn't appeal to the reporter :-). I don't think the fact that the string-theory radius matches the black-hole radius is sufficient to prove the case, though it's an interesting pointer, a curious coincidence if indeed it is such ...

Effectively this is a conjecture - if the strings continue to exist, then they'd have the same size as the black hole appears to have. The throwaway statement " That means a black hole can be traced back to its original conditions, and information survives." seems a bit of a stretch though :-)

Simon

--
Physicists get Hadrons!
1. Re:Hawking radiation by Gil-galad55 · 2004-03-01 10:35 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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)
2. Re:Hawking radiation by kfg · 2004-03-01 10:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  My experience is that that sort of coincidence is suggestive, in other words you've gotten something right, but determining just what that something is is often a)problematic, and b)not always what you thought it was at first.
  
  KFG
3. Re:Hawking radiation by Gil-galad55 · 2004-03-01 10:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And then there are the times when you get lucky and get the right answer for the wrong reason... which is, I suppose, why we have peer review!
  
  --
  To follow knowledge like a sinking star, / Beyond the utmost bound of human thought. ("Ulysses", Tennyson)
4. Re:Hawking radiation by SeanTobin · 2004-03-01 10:57 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The thing about black holes emiting radiation is that they don't actually emit any radiation. Anything that enters the event horizon is gone - for good. It doesn't come back ever, even as black body radiation.
  
  The way theorists get around this is through virtual particles. Assume that virtual particle pairs are blinking in and out of existance all the time, but are never noticed because before they become 'real' particles they destroy each other (think particle/anti particle). The fun part comes when the particles appear on opposite sides of an event horizon. One gets sucked into the black hole, and the other becomes a full-fledged particle with a small chance of escapeing. Because the escapeing particle was never in the event horizon to begin with, it can contain no information from within the black hole.
  
  Now, how the black hole doesn't gain mass from the anti-particle I'm not quite sure... I'll leave that up to all the ./ theoretical physisists.
  
  --
  Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
5. Re:Hawking radiation by dnoyeb · 2004-03-01 10:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In my mathematical experience, coincidence usually means you have used circular logic/calculations somewhere. In effect proving your foundation.
  
  But its always nice to figure out how you fooled yourself :)
6. Re:Hawking radiation by kfg · 2004-03-01 11:07 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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
7. Re:Hawking radiation by smittyoneeach · 2004-03-01 11:10 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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
8. Re:Hawking radiation by CAlworth1 · 2004-03-01 11:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  IANATP (theoretical physicist), but I think I may be able to shed a bit of light on the last question.
  
  As I understand it, the idea is that the particle and the anti-particle come into being at the same place, moving in different dirrectsion, and the anti-particle is more prone to being pulled in somehow due it its being the opposite of the other mass in the black hole. The particle escapes, generating the black-body radiation, and the anti-particle enters the black whole and collides with a corresponding particle, leaving existance as the original particles came into existance - messed up I know.
  
  If anyone is curious, (stolen from The Universe in a Nutshell by Stephen Hawking, the temp of a black hole is
  
  Temp = (h * c^3)/(8 * pi * k * G * M)
  
  where h is planck's constant, c is the speed of light, G is Newton's gravitational constant, k is Boltzman's costant,T is temp, and M is the mass of the black hole.
9. Re:Hawking radiation by ralphclark · 2004-03-01 11:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Because the escapeing particle was never in the event horizon to begin with, it can contain no information from within the black hole.
  Except that the pair of virtual particles are an entangled pair and if one catches the escaped one and measures its quantum state, one then knows the quantum state of the one that fell in. Catch enough of them and you know about an appreciable fraction of the black hole (in theory!)
  Now, how the black hole doesn't gain mass from the anti-particle I'm not quite sure
  The energy that was used to create the virtual pair came from the black hole's gravitational field, thus robbing the hole temporarily of mass. For each "virtual" particle that escapes as Hawking radiation, that mass is lost permanently so the mass of the hole goes down, over time. Now remember that this loss can only happen at the event horizon; if the black hole is very large, the tidal force (the gravity gradient) at the event horizon will be weak and thus the rate of particle loss will be very low. For very small black holes the tidal force at the event horizon will be enormous and almost all virtual pairs close to the boundary will separate in this way.
  So large black holes will simmer coldly, shrinking only with glacial slowness if at all, and small ones will be hot and shrink very rapidly indeed - finally disappearing altogether in an brief, intense burst of radiation, according to Hawking's theory.
10. Re:Hawking radiation by CheshireCatCO · 2004-03-01 11:42 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Careful there. A simple-minded Newtonian derivation gives the correct Schwartschild radius for a black hole, despite having two deep physical flaws and relying on completely inapplicable physics. For that matter, two words: "Bode's Law."
11. Re:Hawking radiation by orin · 2004-03-01 19:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Actually a lot of complex experiments (unless they come up with something totally unexpected like Cold Fusion) - are not reproduced.
  
  The reason is that it is difficult enough to get funding for a complex experiment at the best of times. If you try to get funding to perform a complex experiment that someone else has already performed, you are a lot less likely to be successful.
  
  So although the theory is that scientific experiments are always directly replicated, in most cases scientists don't have the will (why go where someone has gone before) or the funds to do so.
stephen lost by squarefish · 2004-03-01 10:30 · Score: 5, Funny

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.
Re: encyclopaediae by gnu-generation-one · 2004-03-01 10:32 · Score: 5, Funny

"Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne may owe John Preskill a set of encyclopedias of his choice"

Do they take Wiki?
status of string theory by microbox · 2004-03-01 10:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

Is there any hard evidence that string theory is correct?

I'd be holding onto my bet a little longer I think=)

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
1. Re:status of string theory by Anonymous Coward · 2004-03-01 11:14 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Responding as I am taking a string theory course from Prof. Zwiebach here at MIT ...
  
  String theory certainly does predict a number of things that are easily testable ... just not right now. For instance, compactified extra dimensions (as SR includes) introduce additional energy terms to simple quantum problems (i.e. "particle in a box" problems, and SHOs). The problem is that these effects are very large; ergo, the energies necessitated to test these theories are somewhat higher than we can accomplish.
  
  Yes, it's a theory, yes it's kinda off-the-wall and feels a bit contrived, but, studying it, I gotta say that it's pretty if nothing else. It's elegant enough and compelling enough - in terms of what it promises to explain - that it's worth following until it's found to actually be wrong.
  
  A quantum theory of gravity might not be so motivating to you, but if you're a physicist, it's worth trying something wonky to get to it. (Speaking of which, Quantum Loop Gravity - also very wonky - is awesome).
  
  And, as for "quite a few people" finding it too philosophical ... well, quite a few people aren't physicists. *shrugs*
Tangle of strings? by ENOENT · 2004-03-01 10:34 · Score: 5, Funny

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.
1. Re:Tangle of strings? by DoctorScooby · 2004-03-01 10:41 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Yikes! Sounds like all information that enters a black hole turns into spaghetti code!!! The horror! The horror!
  
  Now I know where Windows98 really came from.
Of course by FreeLinux · 2004-03-01 10:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

This all works on the assumption that you accept string theory in the first place. While string theory may be the darling of astro physicists at the moment, it remains far from proven. If I were Haking, I'd defer payment for a while.
Re:Is it me by microbox · 2004-03-01 10:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe the real workings of the universe can't be explained with everyday experiences. After all, quantum stuff and relativity has little bering on hunting, communicating and making little ones, and that's what our brains were designed to do.

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Tracing origins... by Theaetetus · 2004-03-01 10:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

From the article: Since Mathur's conjecture suggests that strings continue to exist inside the black hole, and the nature of the strings depends on the particles that made up the original source material, then each black hole is as unique as are the stars, planets, or galaxy that formed it. The strings from any subsequent material that enters the black hole would remain traceable as well.
That means a black hole can be traced back to its original conditions, and information survives.
But, if the information about the origins is contained in the strings inside the black hole, that information is inside the event horizon, and can not be observed by anything outside the event horizon. Maybe the information survives, but there's no way to get at it... Unless I'm missing something here? Cosmologists?
-T
Let's get closer... by Lattitude · 2004-03-01 10:36 · Score: 5, Funny

I say we send someone to find out for sure... Darl, you interested?
As soon as we figure out how to retrieve ... by burgburgburg · 2004-03-01 10:37 · Score: 5, Funny

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.
1. Re:As soon as we figure out how to retrieve ... by psoriac · 2004-03-01 10:50 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  And Duke Nukem Forever.
  
  Hey, this is theoretical physics, keep your pseudo science out of here!
  
  --
  I browse Slashdot at +3, Funny
Tangle of Strings by Gleng · 2004-03-01 10:39 · Score: 5, Funny

bound up in a giant tangle of strings that fills a black hole from its core to its surface

Sounds like the back of my desk!

--
"Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
Re:Sweet by Lehk228 · 2004-03-01 10:42 · Score: 5, Funny

FAT32 is a pretty good data singularity, goes in but won't come back out

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
*sob* It must be so sad in there. by Andy+Smith · 2004-03-01 10:42 · Score: 5, Funny

the information continues to exist -- bound up in a giant tangle of strings
Aw! Information wants to be free.
Re:Simple question maybe by benna · 2004-03-01 10:49 · Score: 5, Informative

Why not consult Official String Theory Web site :)

--
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
Re:Is it me by mugnyte · 2004-03-01 10:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't understand this at all. Our everyday experiences are simply products of the "real workings" of the universe. You may think Newtonian physics suffices for what you need, but your "little ones" wouldn't be able to dream of being an astronaut, science professor, astronomer, or a myriad of other things without these other new-fangled theories.

When we achieve enough proficiency in our understanding to make accurate predictions, and validate them with observations, then publish them, have them scrutinized publicly and repeated, we're making vast improvements to the knowledge humanity holds. The fact that we're in so esoteric topics for new things at the moment just goes to show how valid this system is; we've built a cohesive worldview in physics down to the quantum level. There, mysteries abound, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be there.
Information? Not Matter? by ackthpt · 2004-03-01 10:52 · Score: 5, Funny

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
Slashdot, where information goes to die.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Almost - wrong bet though by Raul654 · 2004-03-01 10:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

Hawking has made several bets. You are thinking of his naked singularities bet (A naked singularity is a black-hole without event horizons) Hawking bet Roger Penrose(?) a subscription to Penthouse (I think) that they could not exist. He lost.

--

To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Mathur's tests by trip11 · 2004-03-01 11:10 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've actually had Mathur for classes as I'm an undergraduate at Ohio state in physics. His tests really are not all that brutal as he is both an amazingly smart man and a good teacher. He has this dry humor that you have to pay attention to to get. Amusing quips include:
"It will be a big piece of fun" (talking about deriving equations)
"thats a rather large force" (after mentioning that the force to pull two pieces of a capacitor apart could lift the city of columbus)
If you get a chance to meet him, don't pass it up. He's a great guy
Blackt holes shown to compress losslessly. by Canthros · 2004-03-01 11:15 · Score: 5, Funny

Decompression support expected in next WinZip release.

--
Canthros
The conclusion may be wrong by jd · 2004-03-01 11:17 · Score: 5, Funny

I can prove that if you pour information into Congress, you end up with a tange of red tape, which is similar to a superstring. (Red tape is used to hold things together that would otherwise fly apart; red tape requires at least 10 more dimensions to exist; and there is some evidence that particles of beaurocracy have negative gravity.)

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)
Re:Is it me by mindstrm · 2004-03-01 11:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Part of the problem is the language used to describe these things.. the general approximations they make only really make sense if you understand a lot more background..

On the surface this might all seem like philosophical banter... but that's just what the news prints. What is behind this is tons of chalkboards and computers full of equations that fit modern theory.

Remember, we don't HAVE a theory of everything yet... i'ts not like everything is perfect, and scientists are trying to make things up to look smart.. there is a point where our current equations don't add up, don't make sense.. and that's where these guys are working now.

superstrings, quantum gravity, etc.. these aren't whimsical sci-fi dreams.. they are where science is currently trying to figure things out.