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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
...eciton dluow enoyna
Circumcision is child abuse.
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 Bush administration is going to go ape shit over this. :D
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!
...but fly in the face of Einsteinian relativity.
Sounds like God is a little grumpy about Einstein's letter coming out.
and the event horizon of Chuck Norris is infinity.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
My patent on garbage disposal using blackholes is now worthless.
No, its worthless because you signed the patent application "Anonymous Coward".
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Or, in the language of the non-scientific, "God sees all, God knows everything, God is all powerful".
Perhaps instead of condemning Christians for being unscientific, modern scientists, like Newton, should put more effort into understanding religious language!
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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.