Slashdot Mirror
Black Holes Don't Trap Information Forever
sciencehabit writes "New calculations suggest that black holes are not a one-way street. Anything that falls into them may eventually come out. The findings lend important support to quantum gravity, but fly in the face of Einsteinian relativity. They also support Stephen Hawking's reluctant admission that information couldn't be destroyed by black holes. Penn State researcher Ahbay Ashtekar was quoted saying, 'Once we realized that the notion of space-time as a continuum is only an approximation of reality, it became clear to us that singularities are merely artifacts of our insistence that space-time should be described as a continuum.' Let the physics infighting begin."
So I can't even wipe my drives by throwing them into a black hole?!? Grumble... (fires up microwave)
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Continua are so much prettier mathematically though. Couldn't quantisation just be an artifact of a closed universe i.e. standing wave modes in a finitely sized continuum ? Quantum theory is so damn *ugly* compared to GR and its extensions (Kaluza-Klein, Einstein-Cartan). Sigh.
My patent on garbage disposal using blackholes is now worthless.
I was under the impression that due to the relativistic effects, stuff (photons, matter, information, whatever) wasn't so much destroyed by a black hole as indefinitely delayed, owing to the massive bending of space-time by the singularity. Or do they mean by "eventually" what I mean: it might eventually come out, but the time it takes approaches infinity.
Bold statement when you don't know what's below the Planck level, or how it all connects together.
Still only a theory though, so it carries no more weight than any other.
Wow, I can't wait to see how the writers of The Big Bang Theory will use this new theory to move Leonard's and Penny's love story along. Maybe Sheldon will make an oblique reference to it?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Black holes, however, are not "hairy" either. That is to say, a black hole can be entirely characterized by its position/velocity/acceleration, mass, charge, and rotation. There is (literally) no other definable characteristic of a black hole besides these things.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Does that mean that there's the slightest probability to unsee goatse and live a normal life again?
It is a pity that, after they fire up the Large Hadron Collider, we won't survive to hear Hawking's reluctant admission that tiny black holes don't evaporate.
But if information can escape a black hole, that cannot be true. The information must be in there, and must be itself a characteristic of the black hole.
Also, $100 on Kaku. I don't know why, but I suspect he knows jujutsu....
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
Great. First I learn Newton is only an approximation, atomic theory is only an approximation, Gas *laws* are an approximation and now even Einstein (who I can't understand anyway) is only an approximation as well.
Will the real reality please reveal itself!
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
Let me propose the newest addition to the laws of thermodynamics:
Information can not be destroyed.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
How the hell would you know if it did?
...eciton dluow enoyna
Circumcision is child abuse.
I'm gonna guess "no".
Help stamp out iliturcy.
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
The quantum unit of information is a "ficton".
The rest of the jokes write themselves.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
The earth won't be destroyed because of the LHC!
So, then, once you go black... you can go back?
In 1687, Isaac Newton wrote is Principia, which defined about half of calculus, and all of Newtonian physics - defining laws of both gravity, and inertia. It is understandable, then with no understanding of quantum mechanics at all, that he did not explicitly mention quantum monkeys at all.
Maxwell then went on to explain Ether as a medium through which light traveled in 1878, later being disproved in 1881 by Michelson, and laying the groundwork for the discovery of quantum monkeys though the discovery of constant velocity light.
This was established as mathematically sound in Einstein's theory of special relativity in 1905. General relativity, which explained gravitational effects on light and particles/waves moving fractionally close to the speed of light, was finally established in 1915 by Hilbert and Einstein, surprisingly without mention of quantum monkeys, despite all indications.
Because of this work, as well as the basics of quantum mechanics established by Einstein, various scientists were able to find the six quarks: Up, Down, Top, Bottom, Charmed and Strange, the last (top) only having been confirmed in a laboratory in 1995. Strangely, however, none of the various experiments which identified quarks also identified quantum monkeys, which would have been readily observable through their quantum-picking-fleas-off-other-quantum-monkey gatherings.
The first of these discoveries, in the early 1960s made possible a formalization of a unified model in 1970-73 of four fundamental forces, three of which can be unified mathematically under one theory and with particles that are at least indirectly observable (electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear), and a fourth which doesn't quite fit (gravity). Despite these obvious problems, no one started looking at the quantum banana-eating by quantum monkeys as a possible unifying factor.
To establish a unified theory including gravity, scientists are currently using strings, rather than monkeys, as a unifying element. However, the majority of these theories are neither testable nor useful for the advancement of mankind. None of them so much as mention quantum poo, or postulate that quantum monkeys could have thrown it.
To this day, the world waits for scientists start to seek out the quantum monkeys that have so long waited for proper credit to be given to them for unifying quantum forces. So we wait still, a working unified theory still out of our grasp.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
That's a question that a robot would ask. The rest of us experience time. Sorry that you don't.
...but fly in the face of Einsteinian relativity.
Sounds like God is a little grumpy about Einstein's letter coming out.
No, they mean it's not continuous. It's quantized.
and the event horizon of Chuck Norris is infinity.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
1)You can't win. 2)You can't break even. 3)You can't quit.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Do you think that's air you're breathing?
expandfairuse.org
Why the headline refers to black holes as trapping information, as opposed to energy? I followed some of the links in the article, but didn't see any mention of the significance of the term with regard to this phenomenon.
If the universe is holographic then it makes sense that information can never be destroyed as long as there is matter and energy.
I clicked on the link to find out what the basic unit of information was (an informatron?) and saw the bit about Hawking changing his mind about how black holes work (I assume based on new evidence).
Given the increasing "threat" of religious propaganda (if I was an American I'd be more worried about Intelligent Design getting taught in schools than I would be about terrorists), its so awesome to see a perfect example of how scientists operate: a new, better theory comes along and the old stuff is abandoned in favour of it.
I think you want to avoid the use of the word "forever" when discussing physics. It apparently does not mean what you think it means (for certain values of entropy, YMMV).
While it seems certain to me that amongst the myriad multiverses that spawn every time Heisenberg kills a kitten there must be an effectively infinite number of universes where your statement is true, none of them are this one. To get there from here you have to take the long way 'round. Go back to the the Planck epoch and hang a left.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
That means I'm gonna get my missing-paired socks back!
Table-ized A.I.
Does that mean that there's the slightest probability to unsee goatse and live a normal life again?
Then we could relive the sinister joy of exposing you to it for the first time over and over.
Table-ized A.I.
Actually there is a good chance former UCB Professor Terence McKenna beat you to that insight. If anyone HE deserves a Nobel Prize just as much as the scum ruining this country deserves to be vaccinated.
Do the words even exist to communicate what it actually is?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Has no hair. Get used to it.
No, the binary quantum unit of information is a bit. A ficton is several orders of magnitude "smaller" than that. A bit can be true or false. A light that's on or off. A ficton is a value that represents the smallest possible division of "possibly true". The universe is not binary at a very fine scale. Things fade in and out of frame with increasing and decreasing probability in the present moment. It's only when the arrow of entropy has passed and the frame is set that a thing was or was not, from our point of view.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Continuity (infinite divisibility) is the basis of black holes and wormholes. It is nonsense for the simple reason that it leads to an infinite regress. Heck, space itself (i.e. distance) does not exist for the same simple reason. Distance is an illusion of perception. Spacetime is worse because nothing can move in it by definition. In Conjectures and Refutations, Sir Karl Popper compared spacetime to "Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens". All those physicists out there who are still making a living off of continuum physics are a bunch of crackpots. And that includes time travel believer Stephen Hawking. There is a lot of bullshit in the physics community that passes for science. Don't let mainstream physicists do your thinking for you. Click on the following links and get enlightened.
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics
Nasty Little Truth About Space
Don't believe me either. Figure it out on your own.
Scientist: Five bucks says that Hawking radiation exists...
Stephen Hawking: You're on.
Task Mangler
I've never seen one before, no one has, but I'm guessing it's a white hole. ... ... ...
A 'white hole'?
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. A black hole sucks time and matter out of the universe, a white hole returns it.
So, what is it?
So Diane Duane *did* know what she was talking about in that book!
http://www.youngwizards.com/So-You-Want-To-Be-A-Wizard-Mass-Market-Edition
(there's a nice little summary that mentions fred the white hole who tends to regurgitate objects from the mass his complementary black hole swallowed, or maybe he swallowed and then collapsed, I really don't remember)
That's an answer that someone who hasn't considered the implications of time reversing would give.
If time reversed every day at noon back to the beginning, and then repeated to exactly one day after it's last loop back, then you wouldn't know, neither would any of us. You are looking at it from the inside.
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
Does this actually yield anything or is it like the question how many angels fit on the tip of a needle? I'm not talking about some "real life applications", but does it actually have any effect on astrophysics models?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Or better analogy, time runs like a movie, but instead of 24 frames per second of an actual movie, real time runs about
18550000000000000000000000000000000000000000 frames per second (1/Planck Time).
And same goes for space. A HD movie on a nice TV might have 2000 pixels per meter. The space has something like 62500000000000000000000000000000000 "pixels" per meter (1/Planck Length).
(Note to viewers: Things may appear distorted if viewed from great distance or if viewed from a very fast moving car. This is due to the effects of general relativity, and does not reflect the real quality of our production. We apologize for the inconvenience, and hope you will enjoy the show, no matter where you are watching this.)
Isn't Stephen Hawking working on a proof that black holes lead to another universe entirely...the whole Hawking Information Paradox? I know he admitted information doesn't just "disappear" (as the OP states) hence he had a new theory that it goes into another universe...which I haven't seen mentioned here...I don't know all the details of it, but I know I've read or have seen something about it.
"Yay my theory has internal consistency." =P
It's interesting they are only just realizing it. Thermodynamic folks have had to deal with a related issue for a long time.
Almost everything interesting in thermo has to do with a phase transitition popping up somewhere.
THe funny thing is this. There are no phase transitions in the real world. THey only occur on paper continuuum models. However there are a lot of things that look awfully like phase transitions so they are useful to think about.
What am I babbling about. Well phase transitions happen at places where infinite derivatives occur in mappings. And that's all fine on paper where you have an infinite number of states. If you think of states as being something like basis vectors then it' like saying you can write a fourier transform of a square edge with a continuum of frequencies.
But since there's only a finite number of states available to any system, you dont have enough basis vectors to describe a discountinuty.
So phase transitions dont' exist technically speaking. There's always some transition zone around the edge of the transition.
I think this is what they are talking about here.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Help fight spam
The number of angels that could fit onto the surface of a 1mm square pinhead depends on the average information-content per angel.
Eric Baird
I can get the information back from /dev/null. My compression scheme does work. Time to take over the world!
But if you live in a 3-d world then having a bunch of 2-d simmulations is like have a ream of paper. 500 sheets of paper stack up nicely and consume very little of our 3-d world.
in 6-d our 3-d world is a trivial piece of it and computers can easily simmulate it.
No the problem is that there's not an algebraic solution to any polynomial greater than fifth order. Thus they wind up having to numerically approximate the mappings from 6D and this has round off errors from the finite bit floating point representation in Exel 6D.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
After black hole detection patch, this is normal.
At least to our present level of understanding, yes. Experience has shown that in hindsight indivisible units aren't.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
You left out "color"
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
size == momentum (incorporated in mass & rotation);
"origin" is not a distinct physical characteristic, especially *if* information cannot be extracted from the black hole;
estimated life-span is likewise not a distinct physical characteristic, but depends on the evaporation rate of the 'hole, which may be obtained from the mass and rotation (which give the mass-to-surface-area ratio simply in the case of no rotation, and more complicatedly in the case of non-zero rotation).
"singularities are merely artifacts of our insistence that space-time should be described as a continuum"
so black holes and time travel are back to the pages of sci-fi books--the only place they were ever useful anyway
viva real physics!
we're coming for you dark matter
Yeah, I understand that we are on the inside, and we do black out and lose time. I think that we can't discard our own perception of time moving forward though. The following will sound like gibberish I'm sure:
Suppose that the order of time is undetectable to someone inside--maybe you're part of a computer program. We can run the program in time slices of any order and you won't perceive the difference. So we will run through once and store the state at very fine time intervals. Now we can run it a second time in random order to the same effect for anyone on the 'inside'.
Maybe we make the time slices so small and randomized that we're mainly just reading the previous state as much as doing calculation. We all perceive a window of at least a few milliseconds in time. That perception could not change since it's just a function of the program's execution.
Taken to the extreme, you don't have to do any computations. Just store the state in a book and never open it. That's surely the same as moving to random time slices and doing microseconds of simulation.
So we're all part of a big book, The History of the Universe. It was written based on the first time through. No one is opening it again, but we still experience it just the same.
I don't understand this abhorrence of a universe in which information can be destroyed.
I realize that we're talking about quantum information, not the Library of Congress, and the preferred simplicity of the equations that describe events that work regardless of the direction (sign) of time. Why does the universe have to be built around that principle just because we like the equations?
I've heard "scary stories" (thanks, George Carlin) about "causality" issues, but AFAICT, they're only scary to those who insist on time-symmetry, not that the universe cannot function that way.
Hawking's pan-dimensional replication of information really sounds like a desperate ploy to retain a childhood fantasy by spinning elaborate webs to sustain it, rather than just asking the simpler question: how would a universe work if information can be destroyed?
Maybe, if information CAN be destroyed, it explains the apparent (at the human level, at least) directionality of time. If the universe is open, at some far-future time, when the protons, neutrons, etc, have decayed, the information of their quantum states will be gone; not transformed, gone. If the universe is closed, it will collapse back into a singularity, and again, the information will be gone. So, what?
It's looping! It's looping!!!!
Lisa, in this house ...
First of all, I'd like start off by saying that the human brain cell is not complex enough to comprise an organ complex enough to understand the complexity of the human brain. This ties to the concept that we our are not complex enough to understand the universe completely. We are a part of the whole and therefore only capable of understanding parts of it.
Next, I'd like to mention a theory of mine. Black holes in fact do have multiple orifices. We have traditionally observed the one orifice which compresses space and time attracting matter into it via its density. But what has not been traditionally observed are the billions of smaller orifices which expel the matter and energy it consumes. We have recently been able to observe one of these orifices within the earth. Located below the devil's triangle is what observers believe to be a white hole emitting large volumes of matter into our ocean. I theorize white holes to be exit portals for black holes. I believe every star and every planet in the galaxy has white hole in it which is connected to the black hole in the center of our galaxy. Matter travels the black hole to white hole much in the same way light travels, which I believe dips into and out of another dimension in a wave pattern (but that's another theory of mine).
Have fun...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Due to the researcher's quote, I move this story be tagged "thereisnospoon" . Join me! :)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Oh, crap ... one less place to stash the bodies of my enemies...
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
Information wants to be free!
So if someones says to me, "I will destroy you," I can now plausibly argue with them.
So it's like pooping? Doesn't that define all life?
Of course, if you're fed up of waiting for your information to leak back out again, you could always serve a freedom of information request upon the black hole, demanding to see all the information it hold upon you.
The hole will obviously reserve the right to black some bits out.
"People think of time as a strict progression from cause to effect, but from a non-linear, non-subjective point of view, it's more of a great big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff."
I think that about covers it.
...that, once again, information wants to be free!
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
They're all white (I'm not kidding). I guess Obama won't much like them. (meaning hawking radiation is white, much more "white" btw than any "white" light you've ever seen)
It's just such a faint white that you'd swear it's black.
Wow. I understand all the words, but not when used in that way.
No wonder religion is more popular than science.
Max.
I am afraid that we have to say goodbye to one of the great memes of physics, namely, "black holes don't have hair." This statement, we are sure now, is simply incorrect. A black hole is defined by far more that spin, charge and mass.
Mondern Thermodynamics, Information Theory and after a bitter battle event Quantium Mechanics and GR have admited that black holes indeed do have hair. Even Hawkins has given up this battle and admitted he was wrong. (sidenote: It is an interesting story how Hawkins would say he he proved this point in a recent paper. Many physicsts dispute his version of events as it was already obvious which way the wind was blowing and regard Hawkins paper as a refolumation of the results from the work of others in the above sciences - and not even the most useful formulation at that).
As the artical says what goes in to the black hole will eventually escape or to put it in another more correct way, the information concerning the state of the matter and light that once *fell* in to the BH will become available to the universe again at some, possible distant, point in the future.
I have a feeling the meme "black holes don't have hair" is so atractive and addictive we will be living with and debunking it on slashdot for many years to come but lets be very clear, black holes do have hair.
The distortion is only due to the fact that all of our internal mechanisms are based on virtual photon transfer, and thus are affected by relative velocity. For example, dark matter, which does not interact electromagnetically, does not experience "time" in the same manner as normal matter, like you or me.
Different points of space are not synchronized. Besides, there are more pixels than that, because the positions are not precise. TV screen analogy doesn't work. I also think that you've misunderstood the Planck units a bit. While they may be the limits of observation, it doesn't mean that the space itself is limited by the units - uncertainty prevails. The number of possible positions the space-time can take far surpasses the numbers you present.
Which Hawking? Hawking reversed himself on black holes' one-way entropy. What's the current state of the art? Can I use a black hole to separate the entropy of a structured object from the matter of the object, then spray that entropy on some formless matter to clone it?
--
make install -not war
walking the plank?
perhaps consciousness is a quantum artifact...i know mine pops in & out all the time;-)
an approximation of reality.
Reality is what we taste, smell, see, hear and touch yet we cannot comprehend it...only approximate it.
Anything that falls into them may eventually come out.
;)
Sounds like a release plan from Microsoft
$> cd
$> more beer
What happens to the second law of thermodynamics (no Maxwell demon)? I am not sure I understand why information could not be lost.
Thermodynamically we are losing it all the time. Besides quantum states of standalone particles, there are quantum states of their mutual positions.
I guess it's not clear for me what exactly people mean by "information" when they talk about losing or not losing it in black holes.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
So what is it?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Only joking
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
- There's more to life than getting high on uncovering mysteries
- There are more mysteries than describing the natural laws of the universe
Life will always be presented with difficulties that will present all sorts of interesting engineering challenges - inconceivable things such as the colonization of the stars, or perhaps the dyson-sphereMore importantly and immediate to our situation, is the challenge of building better societies.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
At the moment of discovery, they were heard to say:
"OMG Monkeys!"
You only find it boring because you live in it. It seems mundane to you. It's just like the kid who can't wait to get out of his hick town where nothing ever happens, only to return years later to settle back into his old hometown with a sigh of relief, finally realising that he couldn't see the forest for the trees.
Those aren't Robots they are Daleks and Hawking is the Master, the voice, the control, the brain the size of a planet, the being based in the UK, everything points to it.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Not even a black hole can hold it!
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
The power to run a super gate comes out of one and the ORI can use it to send ships our way.
First: Black Holes are not giant black bowling balls with near infinite gravity, they may not even be "solid" in the sense that most of us would think
Second: Black Holes aren't holes in the sense of a pot hole or even that cool portable hole the loony toons were fond of
Third: It is quite possible, as gravity warps space time in our conventional thinking that you could come up to a black hole and not even notice the change or even the black hole itself due to the distortion.
Fourth: Space (as in what matter and energy exist in) isn't uniform as best as we can tell. Space, if we were to try and divide it up into little 1 inch cubes, we may find, depending on where we are in relation to one of these little 1 inch cubes, could find them billion of miles in size and that same cube, from a different location, could be a cubic millimeter. But if you were in that 1 inch cube you would think it was, well 1 cubic inch. While this is a bit of an over-simplification it helps people understand some of the oddities of black holes. A black hole may compress space around it soo much that billions of those 1 inch cubes could exist around it so from a distance it would look like objects speed up really fast because those 1 inch cubes are 'squished' down to say 1/2 an inch. Because the cubes are smaller from our perspective it looks like things speed up. It is also likely that if there are MORE cubes and they appear smaller things could be moving the same speed from our view but are in fact travelling twice as fast (yet if you were there everything is moving normally.)
This is the problem in science that we are always struggling with. The smaller things get the harder it is to be accurate (how can you look at things smaller then a photon when we use photons to look at things for instance) and the farther away things are the harder it is to accurately see them (as there are such massive objects warping space it's hard to get a clear picture.)
We turn to math to try and clear up the picture but our math as we apply it to the world around us is built on assumptions that we try and prove as best as possible, but any system built on a series of tested assumptions is bound to need correction from time to time.
A buddy of mine once said, "A black hole I'd wager if you got up and close to one is a mobius ring. A perfect black hole would be a smooth sphere at first but the moment a single particle landed to offset the mass it would first pinch in and collapse into a ring as the gravity would try to collapse back down. Then due to the inbalance the ring would osscillate into a mobius-like ring constantly flexing at extreme speeds. It would be so fast it would look like a sphere but in fact with weird twisted ring whipping around. Given just the right route you might just pass through it and back out or be trapped in the "eye of the storm" in the middle of the mobius ring's rotation\flexing"
Fun stuff happening every day but until chick's dig guys in lab coats we are screwed when it comes to the advancement of humanity. Face it the movie "Idiocracy" is more truth then fiction.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Once we realized that the notion of space-time as a continuum is only an approximation of reality...
...we discovered that philosophers have known this fact for hundreds upon hundreds of years!
Gravity as I learned it as a child:
"What goes up must come down."
Gravity as I'm learning now:
"What goes in may come out."
Is it? There may be a piece of information smaller than one bit or otherwise not integer number of bits... For example, confirmation of the more probable of two possible options would be less than a bit, while choosing the less probable one would be more than a bit (but less than two)...
Considering, that humans give birth to slightly more girls than boys, announcing to your family, that your child is a female transfers (very slightly) less than a bit of information...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Seems to me that part of the problem is that Newton's basic axioms about space, time, etc., are flawed; and that although Einstein resolved some of the problems, he did not address the basic structure of Newton's one-dimensional notion of time, etc.
If the axioms are different, then the theory is inevitably different. Some of you yonger SlashDotters may not have read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions." At the time it was written, Kuhn did a trenchant job of describing how axiomatic changes influence the entire epistemological infrastructure of scientific theory.
Aboriginal Indigenous understanding of time, for example, is nonlinear (and not just in the sense of being curved as a part of the space-time continuum in relationship with gravity).
A lot of people dismiss Indigenous knowledge - there are quite a few negative stereotypes about us - but at least some of our science / ways-of-being are very thoroughly grounded in the astute observation, mindful / brilliantly aware interaction with the world (i.e. a parallel of scientific experimentation), and wisdom of countless millennia.
FFI, the current draft of Chapter 2 of my (in process) Ph.D. dissertation has a discussion of some of the axiomatic limitations of contemporary scientific world-views (linked to http://www.maquah.blogspot.com/ ).
I'm still working on it; and am interested in discussing it.
Once again a theory that supports the simple concept that there are probably no true statements containing absolutes such as "never", "forever", "allways", "infinite"
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
18550000000000000000000000000000000000000000 frames per second (1/Planck Time).
And same goes for space. A HD movie on a nice TV might have 2000 pixels per meter. The space has something like 62500000000000000000000000000000000 "pixels" per meter (1/Planck Length). And you thought the Blu-ray/HD-DVD fight was bad. You're gonna need a HUGE-ass TV for this End of the Universe thing... and one hell of a capture card.
Sice GR and QM cannot merge consistenly though, some things will change when (if?) we merge them. The authors of this paper claim that this is one of them, and that you do, in fact, get all the information back.
Since I was a kid I've proposed Einstein was wrong about mass increasing as you approach the speed of light. Consider this: People used to think it was impossible to break the sound barrier. We discovered that as someone approached the speed of sound there was a force acting back on them -- a collection of sound energy in front of them that impeded greater speed, until finally we put enough force in to break through the 'barrier' and go faster than sound. I think light, while a more complex form of energy than sound, would have a similar but probably much stronger effect. As an object approaches the speed of light, it would require a significant amount of force to break through the energy wall in front of it before exceeding that velocity. That would give the effect described by Einstein -- because of the energy force in front of the object, it would seems as if you were dumping more and more energy into the object and having a harder and harder time making it go faster - it would feel like the mass was increasing with the speed of the object. But really, it is the force back upon the object from the wall of energy that is making it harder to accelerate, not an increased mass. Given the nature of light, it would be very interesting to see what would happen when something exceeds the speed of light. I think a black hole is just a location where an object of enough density/mass can accelerate stuff around it faster than the speed of light.
Check out the short story "The man who ate himself" by Rudy Rucker (the man writes SF, but he's also a mathematician, so the story may be weird, but it makes sense). There they do figure out how the loop worked, from the inside.
I know this theory is true. I have, on rare occasion, been able to retrieve something that was previously left at my In-Laws' house.
Remember, I said "rare" occasions.
Think of the Universe as a FSM. The matrix used to store one state of the machine is three dimentional. When such a state machine is complex enough, both in it's logic and in the size of the matrix that holds the state, you will eventually find that given enough execution cycles, a certain part of the state machine will gain enough stability as to become a state machine in itself. Eventually this state will become self-aware. When such an sm inside another sm exists, and becomes self-aware, it will perceive a lot of tricks, one of them, is the idea of endless space and continuous time. Time is just the feel that sm gets when it understands the relation between multiple states, and since the measuring unit is allways bigger than the smallest unit (of time or space), this inside state perceives it as continuous.
I first discovered all this during a freebase trip, but hey!, then I found out I was right.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
As far as I understand (and that may well be all wrong, IANAQP...), Planck units aren't just limits of observation, but the uncertainity is "real", ie. the universe itself doesn't have anything more accurate information, no so called "hidden variables".
But if you just meant that HD movie images are pixellated, and universe really isn't... well, I don't know about that. But if there are no hidden variables, then to me it seems that you could store all the information there is available at Planck length/time resolution. Ie increasing storage resolution would not allow adding any more information, since there isn't any more information or accuracy in our universe.
But that's just my intuition speaking...
How dare you disrespect me like that! My robotic overlord father shall hear of this!
Units can give you clues.
Newton's law of gravity only has the constant G. It is a classical approach to gravity. This is good enough for working with rockets.
In the Minkowski metric of spactime, there are the constants G and c. This is a relativistic approach to gravity. This is good enough for rockets that carry atomic clocks.
A quantum theory needs to have G, c, and h in the metric. I have NO IDEA why people bother with the current approach to strong gravity where quantum mechanics matters, and thus will require a metric with G, c, and h (other than their job depends on publishing). We don't have such a metric, ergo we can say zip about extremely strong gravitational fields.
Working on new views of old physics at http://VisualPhysics.org
Pardon my somewhat crude translation, but all I got from the summary is that they all agree they are full of shit, but haven't quite agreed on the definition for a toilet yet.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
The middle of it isn't a key for hex. The values repeat in the middle, which would be unnecessary for a key. Also, there is no value for "A" which is part of hex.
The top is binary, ||| || | = 11101101
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
wasn't this kind of speculation called sci-fi?
Repeat after me 'math is not the Universe'. Math is just the language we use to try to describe and understand the Universe.
When parts of your model explode into infinity, it should be an indication that there is something wrong with your model.
Information is not a property of matter-energy. In this sense, the medium is not the message. GR and SR deal with matter-energy.
it's an approximately infinite universe.
Here is the preprint on arxiv.
Find free books.
I imagine black holes give off some sort of radiation (possibly at the quantum level). Whatever it is we just can't detect it yet.
The "no hair" conjecture argues that you can completely describe black holes to the limits of observation using only three externally measured classical properties: mass, charge and angular momentum. (No-hair is frame independent, so does not concern itself with your 4-vector ("position/velocity/acceleration"); all events, hairy or not, have those).
"No hair" does not really reveal the nature of the thing thus described, just its behaviour, particularly with respect to things at a (classical) distance.
This is useful since abstracting complicated events behind simple models allows tractable equations of state without loss of accuracy. Having to know what's "behind" the event horizon could significantly complicate the treatment of black holes at classical scales. Since there are probably quite a few of them around, this is probably important.
No-hair became a little ugly in the presence of the small positive cosmological constant, and may yet have to adapt to the possibility of magnetic charge, since "exotic heavy relics at event horizons" is a prediction of some versions of Cosmic Inflation which are still supported by CMBR observation. (You could call this the black hole event horizon / cosmological event horizon correspondence if you like
No-hair is certainly plausible and testable, and is useful now, but it may not be accurate.
More importantly, even if no-hair is true, it does not really help with quantum (as opposed to semi-classical) treatments of black holes, which are also interesting for a variety of reasons.
arXiv:gr-qc/0702006v2 goes into this in some detail.
No, they mean that time is not like a solid line, it is more like a dotted line, each dot being a moment in time.
Time is a myth, or at best a misconception. Time? Just say no!
Clocks on the other hand are very real but have nothing to do with time.
The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
Information can come out of black holes? So what you are saying is, is that black holes are essentially giant fortune cookies?
"You will be going on a trip soon." - Cygnus X1
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
I thought that... (see sig.)
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Not only that, but also Big Bang isn't singularity..
The PSU gravity group is putting out an amazing amount of stuff with loop quantum gravity recently - first black holes are non singular, then the big bang is a big bounce and now information is not lost in black holes! When you compare the loop productivity to string theory it's incredible - perhaps more groups should look into this loop gravity idea?
I find it amusing that he is so threatened by ideas.
I'm more worried about the wants of the many trampling the rights of a few. Which is exactly what he wants to do, and what happened as a result of terrorism combined with the people wanting security at the expense of freedom.
I'm sure it has been written in this chapter for a couple of decades now... A brief History of time - Black Holes aren't so black????? The expulsion of anti-particles out the y axis
And on the final day he reached out his noodly appendage and there arose
quantum monkeys
Has anyone ever designed a 2D Turing-Complete computer?
Table-ized A.I.
The article says "...it became clear to us that singularities are merely artifacts of..". What I don't understand is how there can be singularities (with unlimited gravitation). In the process of creating a singularity of gravitation, the time should slow down (if I understand the general relativity). That means that it will take for ever to create such a singularity, in which case there are none yet. What is it that I misunderstand?