Slashdot Mirror
Stephen Hawking Presents Theory On Getting Information Out of a Black Hole
An anonymous reader writes: Physicist Stephen Hawking claims to have figured out a way for information to leave a black hole. He presented his theory today at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. Scientists have struggled with the black hole information paradox for years, and Hawking thinks this new theory could be a solution. He said, "I propose that the information is stored not in the interior of the black hole as one might expect, but in its boundary, the event horizon." Put in layman's terms, "this jumbled return of information was like burning an encyclopedia: You wouldn't technically lose any information if you kept all of the ashes in one place, but you'd have a hard time looking up the capital of Minnesota." Information can leave the black hole via Hawking radiation, though it will be functionally useless. Hawking worked with Cambridge's Malcolm Perry and Harvard's Andrew Stromberg on this theory.
chuck norris doesn't escape from black holes.
they escape from HIM.
"Hawking's new idea is that the information doesn't make it inside the black hole at all. Instead, it's permanently encoded in a 2D hologram at the surface of the black hole's event horizon".
Uh, isn't that basically Susskind's idea? The holographic principal and all.
He doesn't look all too terribly excited about it.
I look forward to the Lucas-style remake of Interstellar next year.
Getting garbaje out of a black hole.
-no sig today-
Hawking in all his brilliance has produced a new paradox trying to solve another? How's that help anything? This is re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
So now we have information that's "useless" because we won't be able to unscramble it, but no information is lost? It's like saying that the information on my degaussed and melted down backup disk drive is *still* there, if I just knew how to reassemble it properly. That backup disk is just a pile of slag, the information it contained is gone. I'm sorry, that sure looks like we lost information to me... The net effect is the same as the information being lost, so I don't see how this stroke of genius helps the problem beyond moving the paradox to having the information preserved but unrecoverable by any possible means.
Try again sir... You didn't solve anything here.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
A particle falling into a black hole never perceives itself as having moved past an event horizon, as an apparent event horizon recedes before it. The horizon keeps receding in the direction of the "singularity" until it's torn apart on the way in.
An external observer never perceives a particle falling past the so-called "true" horizon; it perceives the falling object's time as slowing down to a virtual stop at the event horizon.
Both of these views are logically consistent under a simple constraint: nothing ever passes an event horizon, and there's no such thing as a "true" horizon, only apparent horizons. The outside observer's view of "truth" should be given no more precedence as being reality than the infalling observer's perception.
The same nothing-moves-past-the-event-horizon rule must apply to particles falling into the black hole as it's forming: they never get to reach a "singularity" either. Meaning nothing is ever in a singularity state, even that which formed the black hole itself.
As a black hole evaporates, its mass drops and its event horizon moves inward. Hence, an outside observer will perceive more of an infalling particle's progress inward, as if time is slowly being released. The infalling particle perceives no wait, just a continuous fall. Since the outside observer is seeing the infalling particle's time as moving many, many orders of magnitude slower, then for the two reference frames to be logically consistent, the amount of black hole power output perceived by the outside observer must be perceived by the infalling particle to be many, many orders of magnitude more intense. Hence it's far from black to the infalling particle, rather an intense source of radiation, growing ever more violent as the particle falls further in.
In short, all of this implies that black holes, to an outside observer, are basically a spot where time slows to a near stop, slowly leaking it out as they radiate away. To an infalling observer, he's just falling into a collapsing star that grows ever more radiatively intense as it collapses. The infalling particle, like everything else that falls into the black hole in the collapse, is blown apart by the intense radiation. But no special rules occur, no loss of information - and no singularity.
Or whatever, what do I know ;)
Stale pastry is hollow succor to one who is bereft of ostrich.
He was talking about Comcast.
Table-ized A.I.
I'll make you gargle your last breath !
Saint Paul
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Have gnu, will travel.
What's Minnesota fgo to do with this?
n/t
Who cares if information is preserved in a black hole? What purpose does it serve? What can it teach us about the universe? I'd actually like to know the answers to these questions.
But... Hawking is undoubtedly a brilliant mind. Why has he been wasting his time for years trying to decide whether or not "information is preserved in a black hole"?
I'm admitting my ignorance here... Someone please explain to me what the relevance of this is...
I remember when Hawking said that basically black holes must radiate "information" somehow.
Before that idea, the thinking was that if you could somehow reverse the direction of time, plenty of things in the universe would go in reverse but one thing that you would never see is something that went into a black hole coming back out again.
Hawking felt that this was counterintuitive, or something, and came up with this idea: something goes into a black hole, and information about that thing comes out. Somehow.
He never really described how that's supposed to happen. So, fast forward to today.
So, basically he tacked one additional sentence onto an already pretty short statement -- IMHO.
It's not all that exciting unless you're a really excitable theoretical physicist.
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
at least not in the common concept of a super massive star being crushed to a zero dimensional point.
As the mass compresses the gravity filed, and the time distortion caused by it, become so strong that the star has not yet finished imploding.
just as anything approaching the event horizon has time slow to the point that it never crosses the event horizon.
Eventually, after unknown trillions of years the cores of these stars, which have been collapsing all the time, will reach a state where they will rebound and begin expanding again.
All the matter/energy/information that the "black hole" contains, along with everything that had fallen into it during its lifetime, will be released back into the Universe in what will appear to an observer as a massive explosion, a "Big Bang" if you like.
Inflation will kick in and a new Universe will rise from the ashes of our current Cosmos. And some of what we are will be preserved and passed on.
-
This guy appears to be full of crap at times.
I swear he just makes this shit up because he can and an entire multitude of sheep are willing to spout noise similar to the original noise this idiot has spoken.
He has no proof so his theory on blackholes is no more or less valid than the original earth is flat hypothesis. That was proven to be wrong. We cant easily do that with this guy.
The point is - what is the point ?
Talking about hypothetical self-referencial crap that remains in the realms of fantasy.
He may be good at maths - but thats about it.
So what if he can pull information out of a black hole.
I'll be impressed when he gets the truth - about ANYTHING - from Hillary Clinton.
Doesn't sound very informative to me
Oh yeah, this is slashdot....
My theory for getting information out of a black hole....
Eat the barbacoa with spicy sauce at chipotle.
Silence is a state of mime.
Put in layman's terms, "this jumbled return of information was like burning an encyclopedia ...
Millennials ask, "how would you burn Wikipedia?"
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Or just good ol fashioned geek fun?
Do they mean Andrew Strominger at Harvard? I've never heard of Andrew Stromberg.
I don't care. No really, I don't. I care about the latest breakthroughs in semiconductor design, superconductivity, biology, but cosmology is f'ing stupid. It's talking about stuff that will never ever matter. It's just a bunch of fun for sci-fi nerds, like 12 year olds talking about Ferraris except they'll never own them in their wildest dreams.
Stephen Hawking Presents Theory On Getting Information Out of a Black Hole
You rough it up a little, shine a bright light in its face and ask it where it stashed the loot. You could also play good astrophysicist/bad astrophysicist.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Perception in this case is quite everything. We as humans see but a speck of the cosmos's wondrous beauty, and that being in very very slow motion. In essence, we cannot see the forest for the trees. Therefore, if even for one instance we could stop time long enough to stand on the precipice of a "black hole", I (as Hawking is too) am quite sure massive amounts of information could be revealed. Unfortunately this will be of little use as our current state/s of awareness is not capable of that capacity just yet. Does anyone not recall him stating recently (2 light yrs ago?) that energy could be destroyed? Hawking is but a child compared to einstein imo.
> Chuck norris doesn't escape from black holes. They escape from HIM.
Even Chuck Norris was defeated ... once ... by Bruce Lee
> Hawking's new idea is that the information doesn't make it inside the black hole at all. Instead, it's permanently encoded in a 2D hologram at the surface of the black hole's event horizon.
So we throw Hatsune Miku into a black hole and the result is still Hatsune Miku? She's even more invariable than e^x derived!
Doesn't everyone know that you need to pass a black hole by another to pull stuff back out of a black hole?
Just what we need, more useless theoretical non-science that can never be verified and put to good use.
Being able to reassemble it is not the point, it's that you can re-wind time and get the information back out. With the normal idea of a blackhole, even if you could rewind time, you couldn't get the information back out.
No, you miss the point. He said basically "Having the information 'available' isn't really helpful because we have no way to get it." You simply proposed a theoretical way to get it that can't be done either at this time, possibly ever, so his assertion that we can't get it is still right. Unless you are a Q, telling us to "rewind time" as about as helpful as suggesting we simply change the gravitational constant of the universe.
This guy is stuck in black hole related stuff and just can't move out of it.
"Blah blah blah." - [citation needed]
Jim Stone, freelance journalist, points out that Stephen Hawking died years ago, "on schedule" (e.g., from the disease that he had). http://82.221.129.208/ac7index... (search for "Hawking").
Which raises the question, why are they perpetuating him? His voice has been used in many mainstream media projects in the past few years -- a Pink Floyd song, a Big Bang episode, some other song more recently, The Simpsons, etc. MSM is being used to perpetuate the lie, just as they're being used to perpetuate the lie that the Earth is a globe (well, now it's a pear, Neil DeGrass Tyson says, because we've figured out that there's more land in the south, which makes sense if you look at the UN flag, which is a map of the flat Earth -- so they keep changing what "science" says to fit their narrative, but how the heck did NASA get pictures of a round Earth!??! Especially one with "SEX" in the clouds, the recent photoshop disaster).
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . stop acting like a fucking crybaby.
Cheers.
A while back, a similar claim was made that matter never crosses the event horizon because the black hole never collapses far enough to become a bona fide black hole. If the matter and information simply get stuck in a sphere surrounding the event horizon (assuming an event horizon ever forms) then the theories are essentially the same.
It’s not really much of a headline, but it’s slightly more compelling than “Serious Man is Serious.”
Does anyone not recall him stating recently (2 light yrs ago?) that energy could be destroyed?
At least Hawking wouldn't have confused a measure of time with a measure of distance.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Unless he's using theorists' units where c=1... but then the point is to be lazy about writing extra c's and one wouldn't write light years, but just years.