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.
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.
The problem is undetermined.
"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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
No, it was not determinism that quantum theory killed. Under Heisenberg's incorrectly named "principle of uncertainty," the exact position and momentum of a physical system cannot be measured a at the same time, but that doesn't mean they are undetermined, just that we cannot measure both of them at the same time. The term for it is Unschärferelation, that roughly translates as "unsharpness relationship", but due to Slashdot's lack of support of Unicode at the time, it was not possible to keep that in the original German, so the translation "principle of uncertainty" was adopted [source].
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
It's indeterminate. ;)
Then are black holes just portals to a different server?
Before we go down the road of namecalling, how about trying to offer up a proof? Most of us do not learn quantum mechanics in school, nor is it relevant to our lives in a direct way, thus all we have are vague and imprecise english to summarize things, and as it happened, most of the key people in this field were German. And that's why we use math and not english to talk about science.
My attempt, and I am probably wrong I took one semester of modern physics to satisfy a degree requirement, is that if p=mv, (where p is momentum, not position), you can see clearly that uncertainty is mathematical definite, not an empirical approximate as derived from newtonian physics. Position is the first derivative of velocity, defined as lim(h->0) (v(t+h)+v(t))/h. As h approaches 0, this equation blows up to plus or minus infinity. Thus if we know velocity precisely, we thus cannot be sure about position: that equation explodes. Going the other way, if we know position precisely, we have no way of knowing velocity (change in position) without a second data point. If we know two positions precisely, we only know average velocity (h>0, above). Thus the best we can do is describe these quantities simultaneously is using stochastic methods. This is another branch of mathematics that most of us never touch, and makes reading actual quantum mechanics theories very challenging.
That it is a mathematical impossibility to resolve this uncertainty derives directly from newtonian physics, no quantum magic required. Now you can still cling to the hidden state argument: that just because we cannot know these things does not mean they do not exist: possibly your billiard ball has a definitely position and definite velocity and it is our mathematical model that is not up to the task. This boils down to an unhelpful theory is unhelpful, we can assume they exist, but we can only approximate their values so back to square 1. In quantum mechanics, this idea of hidden state has been continuously asserted and refuted via empirical testing. That doesn't mean it's wrong, we may still be entirely ignorant about what is really going on, that's what scientists do and why every time they say they're "almost done", something crazy happens. It seems to me that a lot of scientists are willing to let the very odd behaviors they see in quantum mechanics pass by rather than seeking a deeper truth.
On the other hand, a lot of useful things can be done with the state-free model, and that's where I prove myself again to be an engineer and not a scientist - if a model exists that i can use to build something, it is good enough for me.
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
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