Hawking Paradox

[weeman]

Last night I was watching the Science Channel's show about Hawking's Paradox dealing with black holes. Today, Hawking's idea that information is destroyed in black holes, is known to some people, as one of his biggest mistakes.<br /><br />I didn't get to watch the entire show, and I was curious: How does Hawking explain the process as to how information is destroyed?<br /><br />I can't remember his name, but in the show they interview one of Hawking's friends and rivals on the topic of the 'information paradox'. He stated that it is impossible for information to be destroyed, even if the black hole evaporates over time, the information of the matter that it sucked in for millions or billions of years has to go somewhere, it can't just disappear.<br /><br />So, I was just curious about Hawking's scientific explanation as to how information is completely destroyed within a black hole, even if the black hole does not last forever. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[themage]

It wasn't really theorized that there was a total destruction of information in the form of mass. But more so that anything being sucked into a black hole would never escape, therefore it couldn’t enter our universe again and it would be thought of as destroyed.<br /><br />Check out this wiki article, it gives a much better explanation then I can<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkings_Paradox<br />

 

[primordial]

weeman ! "Last night I was watching the Science Channel's show about Hawking's Paradox dealing with black holes. Today, Hawking's idea that information is destroyed in black holes, is known to some people, as one of his biggest mistakes."conservation of quantum information, could rebound through out the whole of our universe. Stephen Hawking has, in his new explanation, the Information going through the singularity, into other universes, until they come to a universe that does not have a black hole, so the information is then conserved. His friend and adversary, Mr. Leonard Susskind, has in my opinion, placed Mr. Hawking in a position where he must come up with a little better explanation. I have a good many questions about the existance of what has been called a black hole. First of all Why does a black hole have to have a singularity, how can gravity propagate from inside of the black hole, to curve space-time outside of the black hole, if gravity can only change the curvature of space-time at the same velocity as light travels, if light can't escape a black hole? <br />

 

[jgreimer]

Excellent questions. How do we know a BH contains a singularity? In order to prevent collapse due to gravity a star must have a certain amount of stiffness. The greater the stiffness the higher the speed of sound in the material. In order to prevent collapse, a BH would have to have a material so stiff that the speed of sound in that material would exceed the speed of light. Thus there can be no material stiff enough to resist the gravity in a BH.<br /><br />Personally I'm skeptical that BHs have insides. I don't believe it's possible to cross the event horizon. Note that in strong gravitational fields distance in the radial direction from the gravitational source is noticibly contracted. With a BH as you approach the EH, distance is contracted to zero. This also must mean that the distance through which gravity field propagates must also be contracted... to zero. It would seem that all of a BH's gravity must be contained at the EV. Yet we see photos of matter falling into BHs and of the radiation that matter gives off as it falls in.<br /><br />Does anyone have an answer to this apparent paradox?

 

[vogon13]

I came up with a thought experiment a while back that I will reiterate here. I think my example erases information (slowly).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Imagine a universe with a Big Bang of a much reduced intensity compared to our own. It is of such low wattage, that only 4 photons are produced.<br /><br />2 oriented like this<br /><br />:<br /><br /><br />escape the Big Bang to the left, and 2 photons, oriented like this<br /><br />. .<br /><br /><br />escape the Big Bang to the right. The orientation of the wave functions of the photons encodes information. (< and ^ ). As this universe expands, these photons experience red shifting to progressively lower energies. Eventually, these photons are at ~0 energy. (Yeah, in this thought experiment, I will wait however long it is needed to convince you of that ~0 energy. Even a Skewes number raised to the Skewes power a Skewes number of times if need be).<br /><br /><br />So, do I erase information in this universe ??<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[billslugg]

No, they cannot ever get to zero. Where would the energy have gone? <br /><br />At any arbitrary time />0 you should be able to reverse the process and get your photons back along with the encoded data. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[primordial]

jgreimer ! You have some good questions, and about the only answer is, Black Holes are not an absolute, but are only relative gradents of space time. First because their mass is relative to other observers. I call it the twin Black Hole Paradox where 2 equal black holes are making observations of each other, from their event horizon. Would they both see event horizons or not see event horizons. Just think about it.

 

[yevaud]

I do have to chime in here, and remind people that the term "Singularity" means "a place where our understanding of the physical universe breaks down." It's used frequently in mathematics and, to a lesser degree, physics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[primordial]

Yevaud ! I know you'r correct on this point, however I think Mr. Hawking uses it to transfer mass from one universe to another, in his multiverse explanation of saving information; that otherwise would be lost in a universe that has black holes, where the end result would be a universe that does not have a black hole; therefore information will not be lost. I do not see the possibility of a finite black hole in an infinite propagation of space-time.<br />

 

[jgreimer]

In 2007, Case Western Reserve University physicists Tanmay Vachaspati, Dejan Stojkovic and Lawrence M. Krauss claimed to have resolved the paradox by saying that, from the perspective of an outside observer, objects falling into a black hole would appear to take an infinite amount of time to reach the event horizon, so no information would be lost. To an external observer the event horizon would appear to take an infinite amount of time to form due to gravitational redshift, and the black hole would dissipate via pre-Hawking radiation before an event horizon would ever form. Vachaspati has said that such a "black star" would otherwise be very much like a black hole.[1][2]<br /><br />from :<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

 

[shadow735]

since we cannot measure dark matter is it possible for black holes to convert the matter it has assimulated into dark matter or dark energy as it evaporates (according to hawkings theory)<br />I really dont get the tranfer of matter to other universes unless the gravity of the BH rips the space time/what ever that would separate multi universes (if they exist) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Black holes aint black.They radiate.

 

[primordial]

alokmohan ! Yes.

 

[primordial]

shadow735 ! You have a good question, I guess only time will tell. <br />