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."

27 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Oh great... by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  2. pretty continua by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:pretty continua by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its just that the simulator for this universe has a cell-size, so anything below a plank length is just being approximated to speed up the calculations.

    2. Re:pretty continua by Gerzel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't worry.

      This too will be shown to just be an approximation which doesn't actually reflect how the universe works.

      That's all physics is in the end.

    3. Re:pretty continua by William+Robinson · · Score: 5, Funny
      Single answer.

      It's turtles all the way down :)

    4. Re:pretty continua by MadnessASAP · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hah! That pretty much describes all the science classes I've ever taken. First day of class always went something like this "Just kidding all that hard work you did was actually pointless. This is hows the universe "actually" works. *snicker*"

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    5. Re:pretty continua by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      This too will be shown to just be an approximation which doesn't actually reflect how the universe works. That's all physics is in the end.

      +0.99999997387120382 Insightful

    6. Re:pretty continua by Herve5 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You remind me of what Lord Kelvin was telling his students 100 years ago. Something like: "I'm sad for you, since the Physics is now complete" . Just after that sentence, quantum physics and relativity were discovered ;-)

      --
      Herve S.
    7. Re:pretty continua by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      That has always been the problem when you make the universe infinite, the only effective way of doing so is to define infinity as a dimensions and reality is just the expression of finite probabilities, even when any fraction of infinity is infinite in itself.

      An interesting way of expressing this is with a coin toss. A finite probability of two possible results, heads or tails. However that coin toss can also be infinitely complex when you consider a far more complex reaction, like which calcium atoms would transfer from the surface of your thumb nail to the surface of the table during that same experiment, a result that would not only be governed by the orbital motions of the sub atomic particles making up the surface of the your nail, the coin and the table but also the larger motions of galaxy altering gravity, major electro magnetic fields and your only own personal reactions, a infinitely complex calculation far beyond our abilities to forecast.

      The interesting point being that based upon significance, an 'in reality' infinitely complex reaction can be reduced to the simple finite result of heads or tails, hmm, the nature of our universe and, the importance of relativity and significance.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:pretty continua by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 5, Funny
      I've always wondered about the following:

      if two particles are quantum-entangled, and you separate them, they remain entangled and you can monitor the state of one using the other. (Although I never understood what happens when one particle is accelerated to near light speed: how do two particles on different time scales stay connected?)

      So now drop one particle of the pair into a black hole.

      If they remain entangled, then you clearly have a way to pass information out of the black hole (although time may be stretched so it's not instantaneous anymore). This breaks known physics.

      If their entanglement is broken off, then it means the gravitation boundary of a black hole trumps quantum entanglement. But that breaks known physics.

      I'll take questions from the audience now. Yes, Dr Kip Thorne?

      Thorne: You bastard.

  3. Known for years by LeafOnTheWind · · Score: 5, Funny

    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. I already discovered this during a wild acid trip 30 years ago. Man, the space time continuum is just an illusion - it's all about the singularities. When will The Man start listening and give me my Nobel Prize.
  4. Come out again?! by ink_13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. But does that mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does that mean that there's the slightest probability to unsee goatse and live a normal life again?

  6. LHC by ViX44 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  7. Re:Black holes - not hairy by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Yet another approximation of reality by martinX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:Yet another approximation of reality by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      First I learn Newton is only an approximation...now even Einstein...is only an approximation as well. Will the real reality please reveal itself!

      Here ya go

  9. Re:ridiculous by Stormwatch · · Score: 5, Funny

    Time has never reversed or looped or anything crazy like that before so why would it now?
    How the hell would you know if it did?
    Oh, come on, anyone would notice...
    ...eciton dluow enoyna ,no emoc ,hO

    ?did ti fi wonk uoy dluow lleh eht woH

    ?won ti dluow yhw os erofeb taht ekil yzarc gnihtyna ro depool ro desrever reven sah emiT
  10. Re:ridiculous by complete+loony · · Score: 5, Funny

    How the hell would you know if it did? How the hell would you know if it did?
    --
    09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  11. More diabolical than that by symbolset · · Score: 5, Funny

    The quantum unit of information is a "ficton".

    The rest of the jokes write themselves.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  12. At last! Someone seeks my work! by fireboy1919 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  13. Einstein's Letter by Twigmon · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...but fly in the face of Einsteinian relativity.

    Sounds like God is a little grumpy about Einstein's letter coming out.

  14. CHUCK NORRIS by ClioCJS · · Score: 5, Funny
    Chuck Norris gets information from black holes just by looking at them.

    and the event horizon of Chuck Norris is infinity.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  15. Re:Damn by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    My patent on garbage disposal using blackholes is now worthless.

    No, its worthless because you signed the patent application "Anonymous Coward".

  16. No by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, actually, the quantum unit of information is a bit.

    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.
  17. Re:ridiculous by Urkki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    what do they mean not a continuum? Now we're gonna run out of time? 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.

    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.)
  18. So it IS possible... by phagstrom · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can get the information back from /dev/null. My compression scheme does work. Time to take over the world!