The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does the information is lost forever in the vertex of black hole ?  (Read 7928 times)

ScientificBoysClub

  • Guest
Does the information is lost forever in the vertex of black hole ?  (when ever light enters into black hole ).. this question is from Hawking Paradox .. could any one explain ?


 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
This is a matter of some argument.  There is a good article on the subject in this week's New Scientist.  Look up the holographic principle.  The general theory is that the event horizon has ripples running over it all the way down to the planck scale Theese ripples effectivley contain information about everything that has crossed it and this information can effectively be "read" a the black hole evaporates.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
The Information Paradox concerns a fundamental belief among some physicists that information is never lost - it just gets harder to find. Stephen Hawking's work on black holes went against this belief.

According to Hawking, nothing can survive inside a black hole. Even atoms get ripped apart thus destroying any evidence of what went in. It could be a hydrogen atom, a grand piano, a whale, or a pot of petunias; they would all end up totally destroyed. Even if that were not the case, there would still be no way of getting any information out again. This gives rise to the expression "Black holes have no hair". However, Hawking also found that black holes emit radiation (known as Hawking radiation).

There were, however, some physicists who disputed Hawking's work. They said it applied not only to black holes but to all of physics; therefore there would be no link between cause and effect. This meant that physics would not be able to predict future events.

About 20 years after Hawking's proposition Juan Maldacena provided proof showing that Hawking was wrong; that information is not lost inside a black hole. Hawking set to work to show that Maldacena was wrong.

In 2004, Hawking announced that he had solved the paradox. But to everyone's amazement he had changed his mind and agreed with Maldacena.

I am not sure if Hawking has published his proof yet.
« Last Edit: 19/01/2009 09:46:56 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
I'm increasingly of the opinion (only opinion though, because I haven't proved it to myself yet) that nothing can actually cross the Event Horizon.

Broadly speaking, this is because space and time are the same; it's only our point of view that makes them seem to be different, and if the phenomenon of gravitational time dilation is accepted as fact then there should be a similar effect on the spatial dimensions.  Thus, if the rate of time reduces to zero at the Schwarzschild radius, then so should space.

If then, the space within our universe stops at the EH, nothing moving through space could cross the EH as there isn't any space for it to move into, at least not in our universe.  This is a bit like the act of a fish swimming being confined to the medium of the sea; it can't swim through the air because the air isn't sea (not a perfect analogy because flying fish can glide through the air and even non-flying fish can breach the water's surface).

So what happens to stuff that appears to fall in to a BH?  I think a clue to this is the fact that neither time or space is linear down to the EH but has a gradient and this leaves open the possibility that time and space becomes compressed as one approaches the EH, meaning that there is a potentially infinite amount of time and space surrounding it [the EH].  Thus, when something appears to fall in to a BH it just gets 'stacked up' around the EH and never actually crosses it.  As a consequence, the singularity of a BH, or whatever is inside the EH, would not increase in mass due to in-fall, but the total mass in the region of space-time just outside the EH would increase and as such, the BH would appear to increase in mass.

As to how this would effect Hawking Radiation?  Well, that's less clear - lol.  There's still the possibility of a pair of virtual particles appearing on the EH, and as a consequence, separating before they can re-combine, but in this case only one of them would remain in our universe - the other would be in a different set of space-time that is not part of our space-time set.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Is that so DB?

No hair:)
Good to know.

The idea of quantum information being stored is remarkably hermetic.
There seems a lot of definitions for it:)

Seth Lloyd, author of 'Programming the Universe' sees the universe at its most basic level as a quantum computer.

"I know it sounds crazy ... but it's factually the case. We couldn't built quantum computers unless the universe was quantum and computing. We can build such machines because the universe is storing and processing INFORMATION in the quantum realm."

Hawking seems to see 'information' as some gigantic 'particle' memory who remembers all particles geodesics (paths) and interactions in spacetime, ever.
Where exactly, and how, this would be recorded though nobody knows?

Why a black hole would constitute a special case is its Event Horizon (EV).
We say that when something has passed the EV nothing can come back.
Even reflected light can't find its way out from that black hole.

So the radiation (Hawking radiation) that might be around a black hole would then make a hole in that other Hole (theory about black holes) and perhaps, make our universe seem more 'unified'.
Although that 'information' inside the EV won't be released until our universe is gone to its entropic rest as I understands it.

But the idea of 'information' is to me a esoteric one:)

If i say that all the particles in our universe constitute five kg:)
That is our universe as we can observe it.

To that amount I now further the total (?) amount of information of every particle in all of our universe at all of the time passed and possibly, if the universe is acting as a quantum computer, of all time this universe ever will 'pass through'.

Where would this storage be?

--

Now here is another view of it.
" The electron is a register, but a quantum one. In the space where we think there should be an electron, there is a probability distribution function. Certain interactions can occur that fix an electron at a specific point in time, while other interactions operate on the distribution function as a whole. "

At first sight this sounds rational and reasonable.
But the 'probability distribution function' seems to me to be connected to an 'observer'.

A particle either is or is not.
When we don't observe it it is 'not'.

That is not the same as saying that it doesn't exist except when observed.
If we have accepted that there are things existing outside our thoughts, existing independently of us, then that is a simple 'interpolation' to make.

It just mean that the only way to define where it might be is to observe it.
And that it will act in mysterious ways:)

So that idea seem inconclusive to me.
And it still don't explain what will contain the 'information'
The electron its own register of all its interactions?
so far so good:)

But there is a lot of electrons out there.
And who will know them all?
In time.

You could see it as some strange kind of 'backtracking' binding all electrons finally to each other through their interactions, but that still means that you need that one 'observer' backtracking them.

Ah well, who knows?
« Last Edit: 19/01/2009 21:12:42 by yor_on »
 

Offline demadone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
I have a rather strong theory that could explain what kind of matter we have in a black hole. My theory can even explain Hawkin radiation. I even have predictions that would help to know what to expect after a black hole. Just don't know if I should bring it out here on this forum.
 

Offline demadone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
I predict that a black hole can stop emitting radiation. It can also start abruptly emitting radiation again. The answer to these massive holes is straight forward. In fact, due to the fact that it does not always emit radiation, there are many thousands to one more black holes in the universe than we think.
 

Offline demadone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
I can also explain the giant storm spots on gaseous planets.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Demadone if you are referring to the 'red spot' of Jupiter check this.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2D81238F931A25752C1A963948260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all

Chaos Math is everywhere now, it's also called 'non linear' math.
What we learn in school is mostly linear math, which I see as a subset of mathematics, defined by their clear solutions.
Non linear math may have several solutions, or none at all:)

The universe, as well as our Earth, is non linear.
« Last Edit: 20/01/2009 16:58:19 by yor_on »
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
I'm increasingly of the opinion (only opinion though, because I haven't proved it to myself yet) that nothing can actually cross the Event Horizon.
Ok got me again.If nothing can cross the EH how did it form in the first place.It is my understand that a black hole is formed when a star collapses  to a large if not an infinite mass causing a gravitational field that is that strong that once matter gets within a certain distance (the EH) it can no longer escape its gravitational field.So surely the mass has to create the gravitation field before the EH can be calculated.

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline demadone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
The last line in that link says:

'For that matter, the redness of Jupiter's Spot remains a mystery, one of atmospheric chemistry with no sure answer. There is no shortage of theories, however.'

This is getting more fun. My prediction is proving yet more powerful. The redness of the spot is just so straight forward in my theory.

Those guys are saying nothing to me. Nothing like an explanation. Just that there is order in disorder. Explains nothing.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
I'm increasingly of the opinion (only opinion though, because I haven't proved it to myself yet) that nothing can actually cross the Event Horizon.
Ok got me again.If nothing can cross the EH how did it form in the first place.It is my understand that a black hole is formed when a star collapses  to a large if not an infinite mass causing a gravitational field that is that strong that once matter gets within a certain distance (the EH) it can no longer escape its gravitational field.So surely the mass has to create the gravitation field before the EH can be calculated.

Cheers
justaskin

An Event Horizon is not formed until a body lies within it's Schwarzschild radius, which is just dependent upon the mass being considered.  For example; the Earth has a Schwarzschild radius of just under 9mm but it does not have an Event Horizon because the matter making up the Earth lies (mostly) outside the Schwarzschild radius.  If however, something were to compress the Earth so that it was smaller than it's Schwarzschild radius, then it would turn in to a Black Hole with it's Event Horizon at the Scwarzschild radius.

Something you need to be clear on is the difference between mass and density.  When what is left of a large star collapses to form a Black Hole it's mass doesn't become infinite.  Rather, it's density increases and if the collapse is to a singularity then it's density could be termed to be infinite (in this context though, infinite density is meaningless because density requires volume and a singularity has no volume; it's as meaningful as trying to work out how many apples there are in an orange).
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Something you need to be clear on is the difference between mass and density.  When what is left of a large star collapses to form a Black Hole it's mass doesn't become infinite.  Rather, it's density increases and if the collapse is to a singularity then it's density could be termed to be infinite.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Oooh, how I hate infinities! I'm willing to bet nature doesn't like them either & that something happens to stop a singularity forming. Whether all the matter turns to energy or there is a force that stops collapse beyond a certain point, I don't know.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
I don't like infinities either.  I'm of the opinion that their appearance means that something is wrong somewhere.  In the case of a point singularity (zero-sized) mass, I just don't think that density applies anymore because there's no volume; all values for mass give the same answer.

I don't have a problem with zeros though;  I know that I am holding zero apples in my hand right now.
« Last Edit: 22/01/2009 09:05:41 by LeeE »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Zero is a different matter. That is merely an absence of.
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Even with zero you've got be careful.  Zero can either be an absence of a value, or a value in it's own right.  Mind you, as a value, it's not one you can do much with.
 

ScientificBoysClub

  • Guest
Zero is a different matter. That is merely an absence of.

Or who knows ?? it must have opened a portal to higher dimension ?? and information might lost into it ?
 

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
Zero is a different matter. That is merely an absence of.

Or who knows ?? it must have opened a portal to higher dimension ?? and information might lost into it ?

You'll have to offer a plausible mechanism as to how that can happen, otherwise your allusion has no basis in science.  What is a 'portal?  How is it 'opened?  What do you mean by 'higher dimension? What 'information?  In what sense 'lost?

There is no room for mysticism, or allusion, in science.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums