Slashdot Mirror
Stephen Hawking Suggests Black Holes Are Possible Portals To Another Universe (scienceworldreport.com)
An anonymous reader shares an article on Science World Report: Stephen Hawking, in a recent lecture held at the Harvard University, claimed that black holes could be portals to a parallel universe. The celebrated physicist spoke at length about black holes and suggested that they neither store materials absorbed by them nor physical information about the object that created them. Known as the information paradox, the theory goes against the scientific rule that information on a system belonging to a particular time can be used to understand its state at a different time. Over the years, it has been speculated that black holes do not retain information about the stars from which they are formed, except storing their electrical charge, angular momentum and mass. According to Hawking, as per that theory, it was believed that identical black holes might be formed by an infinite quantity of matter configurations. However, quantum mechanics has signaled the opposite by revealing that black holes could only be formed by particles with explicit wavelengths. If the characteristics of the bodies that create black holes are not deprived, then they include a lot of information that is not revealed to the outside world, according to the physicist. "For more than 200 years, we have believed in the science of determinism, that is that the laws of science determine the evolution of the universe" Stephen Hawking said. If information was lost in black holes, we wouldn't be able to predict the future because the black hole could emit any collection of particles."This is in contrast to some of Hawking's earlier views. In 2014, for instance, Hawking suggested that black holes don't exist, at least not like we think.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought quantum theory killed that 100 years ago so whats the problem?
If the mass completely leaves the universe for another universe, why would the gravity be left behind? Also we still can't retrieve the information about the matter that entered without leaving this universe. Also, black holes from other universes should perhaps then spew random massive particles into our universe somewhere and we wouldn't be able to use its vector to determine where it came from AND it would start interacting with matter in our universe which would mess with the back-tracking of information on movement. So much for information preservation.
I knew I hear this idea before :) It is like we need a reboot of it with an overhauled V.I.N.CENT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Going through a black hole will destroy you, much like a sphere of annihilation. This article reminds me of one of my favorite D&D stories. As relayed by another DM of a group of relatively inexperienced (new) players, they had encountered a sphere of annihilation. One player touched it and promptly vaporized into nothingness. One of the remaining party members said, "Oh, it must be a portal! Quick, everyone, jump in!" Four more pops later and the DM had to decide between a TPK or a new adventure in some otherworldly plane.
I was vacuuming some drywall dust out of the air the other day and noticed that as the airborne dust approached the vaccuum host, the air started swirling.
I imagined the dust particles as stars, and the vacuum as a massive black hole. I wonder if all the galaxies are spiraling due to some supermassive, as-yet-undetected gravitational force.
"Portals to another universe" sounds like the least plausible model of black holes. More plausible are non-singular models in which the matter simply transitions into another state inside the black hole; examples are the gravastar and the dark energy star; there are many other possibilities.
It also seems odd to me that people would cling to the "information paradox" as if there were some good reason to believe it. If you truly believe that there is a singularity at the center of a black hole, why wouldn't you also believe that it can destroy information? Conversely, if you try to preserve information in a black hole, it seems to me that you are effectively already modeling an object other than a singularity.
You know, trolling around here is properly done with a degree of subtlety. Problem for you is one doesn't need to read past your handle without knowing you're a troll.
He's an idiot is he? Oh ok then, if you say so. You'll be able to point us to some papers you've written disproving some of his theories then won't you Mr Genius.
"For more than 200 years, we have believed in the science of determinism..."
Our culture being steeped in Newtonian mechanics (where everything is fundamentally predictable) for a very long time has had a strong psychological influence, even after QM comes along to show that determinism itself is very questionable as a principle.
Supervenience is a trickier question than most realize, even top-flight physicists.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
Okay, idiot parent troll/spite/whatever aside, there is a small kernel of something that did strike my mind.
Hawking was once incredibly brilliant, in spite of the massive debilitation from ALS, a normally fatal disease that he's (so far) outlived by at least a factor or four.
That said, insofar as his brilliance, I think that time has sadly passed, or has slipped enough that seriously, unless there's solid math or observation backing it up, maybe the press should stop breathlessly reporting everything he says.
Like in this case, for instance. Where is the math for it? Seriously?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
One can possibly fit many (infinite) mathematical models here, no? So I am dubious if this ever gets resolved.
4wdloop
Now build a stargate to be able to safely use it!
For Hawking, it's worth listening to his intuition even if he doesn't yet back it with science. It's not like he's some quack that has never made a solid discovery. Maybe he or someone else will take his ideas and put forth the work to reconcile them.
I agree that the press should never report his ideas as fact or even probable until there is an adequate basis for that claim. For now this needs to be classified as musings of Hawking, and that's all.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Fry> Don't cry Bender. Nobody really knows what happens in a black hole. It's possible she's still alive in another dimension somewhere. Right, Professor?
Professor> Oh why yes, absolutely!
*Professor turns to Zoidberg*
Professor> Not a chance.
*Professor mimes being hanged*
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
than some over magnetic particle shredder out in space. If nothing can escape the black hole then logic would suggest that you aren't going anywhere but to shreds even if you get close to it. Something that pulls things into it cannot very well send things out of it. There is but one universe and one reality. The wind blows the same whether you are on LSD or not. Your perception of the wind might change but it is still the same wind. I think Hawkings should stick to fucking with Sheldon.
Since the escape velocity from a black hole "exceeds" the speed of light, particles arriving at the event horizon have a lot of energy. The energy from these particles is enough for the creation of another universe. The space inside a black hole expands (in a direction orthogonal to our space dimensions) forming the big bang starting that universe.
Agreed. Intuition is a valid part of scientific endeavour, though not many will agree on that. There should be a lot of freedom in how one constructs a hypothesis. It's still a guess. If it's completely grounded in experiment then it's not a guess.
Quantum Theory is completely deterministic of the wave function. You might not be happy with that because it is not the familiar a state variables position and velocity. But Schrodinger solutions are very precise wave functions, as long as you can form a Hamiltonian.
The guy's account is called "jewsdid911". I'm thinking you don't want to see the kinds of papers he writes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I am sure that as we know more we will remove these singularities and find that black holes are actually "black smears", even if that smear has a radius of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... and then maybe all the information is still there. Things maybe simpler than we hope.
Go outside. Open your eyes. You have just destroyed a host of quantum information - the quantum measurement process is not unitary.
Why are we more special than a black hole? Why should we assume that we can cause the wave function to collapse just by looking at the stars at night but that a blackhole cannot do so even when it eats a star whole?
I am with Penrose on this - it is simplest to assume that quantum systems will in fact no longer evolve unitarily under gravity, e.g.,, in black holes. Information will thus be lost - just as it is every time you use any of your senses.
Waffle != Senility
Maybe his younger position is closer to "the truth," maybe not. He probably deserves serious consideration from the community regarding this new, conflicting, idea that may successfully incorporate a couple of decades of additional input that wasn't available when the previous position was formulated. I have more respect for an older scientist who can contradict his previous positions that I do one who defends their original claims to fame until death.
Put another way: Einstein got lucky. Don't expect every brilliant insight to stand as truth forever.
claimed that black holes could be portals to a parallel universe.
Portal to a parallel universe in which you no longer exist, or time stops for you, forever; if you are foolish enough to fly into one.
The so called information paradox is more likely to be a result of people fooling themselves than any strange happenings requiring exotic explanations involving other universes. An open box is always the low hanging explanation that conveniently explains away everything you don't understand.
Look, there won't be one universe, because anything that can create one universe can create N universes.
Why? The act of creating the universe may render it impossible to create others.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
What actually transpires beneath the veil of an event horizon? Decent people shouldn't think too much about that.
-- Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "For I Have Tasted The Fruit"
Ever since his chair became self aware and seized control from Stephen a few years back its been spouting a lot of questionable statements.
...it is a portal to Another Universe called "Death" :)
Do you really think you'd understand the math? If he intuits something, I'm pretty sure he can
back it up with some math supporting(not proving) it that is so far beyond both you and I that
it isn't helpful to publish to the general public. I'd rather hear the intuition.
yet he's still more lucid than you.
Then are black holes just portals to a different server?
If it wasn't them, who was it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
No, the mass of a black hole does grow. The mass of black holes can be measured.
There are three things (and only three things) you can measure about a singularity inside a black hole: its mass, its charge, and its angular momentum. Obviously, for the black hole itself, you can measure the area of the event horizon as well, but the event horizon is not actually the singularity, but a border between where light can escape, and where it cannot. The event horizon's area and shape are defined by the singularity's mass (area of the event horizon) and the angular momentum (spinning singularities have "flattened" event horizons).
Now that may sound like a lot of things you can measure, but it is actually the most sparse data sets known to exist for an object. And considering all of the things that get sucked into a black hole, you lose a lot of information about the original infalling matter when it is reduced to that.
However, I thought that they had decided that the information was encoded into the event horizon as fluctuations, or was that just a theory?
I'm thinking you don't want to see the kinds of papers he writes.
Can't even use them when you run out of toilet paper, they're already full of shit.
Heavy elements are created by fusion inside of stars and also supernovae (which also frequently, but not always result in black holes). As far as I know, no black hole has ever exploded as nothing escapes from a black hole, and an explosion would seem to put the lie to that.
As far as creating a new universe from a singularity, we may never know. There is some speculation on that, but we're unlikely to ever be able to see that due to the impenetrability of the event horizon.
That said, our observations are that the Big Bang created mostly hydrogen, much less helium, and a trace of lithium. Heavy elements were not created in the Big Bang. We can see this with the Population II stars out there which are older and are metal-poor.
It's not "waffling", Slashdot's lack of understanding of cosmology notwithstanding.
What Hawking said in 2014 was that black holes - in the context of disjoint regions of space irrevocably disconnected from our spacetime - do not exist.
What Hawking is said now is... the same thing.
Hawking did waffle on black holes, once; he was once of the view that information was lost irretrievably beyond the event horizon, but he conceded based on a large scientific debate that arose that this view was mistaken. While he's certainly refined the details of the mechanism and consequences since then (as have the many other cosmologists working on the problem), his overall view has not changed.
A big area of debate which caused the "refining" was the so-called "firewall" paradox, which pointed out a variety of fundamental problems that come when you try to reconcile an effectively disjoint region of spacetime with the concept of information leaking out. The resolutions have been increasingly that black holes aren't nearly as disjoint as they first appeared to be.
Honestly, with the way things are headed, I wouldn't be surprised if what we end up with is nothing more than a dilationary inflation gravity near the event horizon that leads to infalling matter being bent into a flat spacetime at the event horizon - not just a case of "no event horizon", but no singularity either. I've seen some work on this in the past, and it really would make a lot of the "weirdness" of the universe (from black holes to the Big Bang) become a lot less weird. The unification of black holes, inflation and the Big Bang leads to what I find to be a very satisfying "fate of the universe" scenario... the universe "bangs", black holes ultimately form, they drift unthinkably far apart over unfathomably long timespans, then they in turn bang in the exact same manner, creating new universes of their own. And contrary to how it may at first seem (that each new universe would be a small fraction the size of its parent), this wouldn't inherently be the case, as we also have dark energy in the picture.
But that's just my take :)
(Flat spacetime isn't really that weird... we live in spacetime that is, on the large scale, flat)
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
unfortunately the common or garden tens of stellar mass black holes have too much gravitational gradient (tides) to be used
You would need to have a galaxy centre super massive black hole (millions or billions stellar mass) thats not feeding at the time
His theory is so full of holes that he has to say it's not a bug, but a feature. :-)
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Seriously, if these are portal to others, then there has to be portals from others to here. Where are they?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well I'll be damned, I had no idea Jews did 911.
**Thank you, people of the Jewsish faith, for giving the Unites States its emergency services telephone number! It is much easier to use than having to know the number for the local police department everywhere you go!!**
Mod jewsdid911 +1 Informative, pls.
Nothing posted to
You, of all people, calling Stephen Hawking an idiot is deeply ironic.
And speculation != waffling, so we're at least twice removed from direct evidence of Hawking's supposed senility.
In any case what sets Hawking apart isn't infallibility; it's creativity. If you want to be a creative genius you can't worry too much about being wrong, any more than you can be a chess master and worry too much about losing material. It's part of the game.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Maybe it was you.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's an imaginary universe simulated in his mind.
Greed is the root of all evil.
OK Professor Falcon -I mean Hawking, please be the first to test your theory.
Relatively few people, myself included, really want to be the first to jump in black hole to see if you are right.
Sig for hire.
Read the guy's posts. He blames Jews for pornography.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Science isn't about being right all the time...
Since one of the key points of science is that there isn't a special point for your observations (for example the Earth isn't a special case) then we should be seeing information entering our universe from other ones. So what does this information look like after it passes through a black hole and how does it appear to the other universe? If we could look for that then it would be a good test for the theory. Or does the information just pass into a corresponding black hole in the other universe and isn't able to escape from that? If that's the case then it's a pretty useless idea.
Or he may be on to something. At this stage in a typical career of a great physicist, both things are possible. Hawking has always been a great creative thinker in his area of expertise, what he currently claims is not out of character and may well be valid. Outside if his area of expertise, he is a hack, see his uninformed rantings about AI for example. Also not untypical for this development stage of a great physicist. But what really matters is what other physicists think about his statements about physical things.
The one thing that may not have been a good idea though is dumbing down his statements so that a general audience can "understand" them. General audiences are typically challenged to even understand simple scientific facts. They may just go along with them or reject them because they clash with some fuzzily defined beliefs. They routinely have no good justification for either behavior.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Dear Autocorrect:
You insist that when I type '>' I really meant to abbreviate Sergeant, and you will go to your grave convinced that 'href' is just me fucking up 'heed' multiple times every day. But when I type 'Jewsish,' you're like, "Shit yeah man looks right to me!"
Get your shit together.
Love,
-floppy
Nothing posted to
Einstein had strong intuitions. When they were correct, we got relativity. When they weren't, we got new insights into quantum theory by figuring out why he was wrong.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Show me the maths or no philosophical arguments can be entered into.