Hawking, Susskind: Information lost in black holes?

[newtonian]

On the Science channel in about 15 minutes and to repeat into tomorrow is a program entitled "The Hawking Paradox."<br /><br />Therein is a difference between Hawking, who states information is lost in a black hole, and Susskind who states that information is converted to 2d (from 3-d) on the surface of the event horizon in a black hole - and finally a suggestion by Hawking that there are parallel universes without black holes where information is not lost.<br /><br />I have a number of questions on this:<br /><br />1. How is information defined? I am familiar with the difference between informational molecules, which have informational coding or sequences, and mere statistical molecules which do not contain significant information - i.e. enough information to be useful to life - but this is evidently not what is being discussed by the physicists.<br /><br />Susskind, for example, believes that while information can be scrambled, it can never be lost.<br /><br />The definition of information I am familiar would be lost by scrambling, i.e. by chance. But whatever definition Suskind is using must be different.<br /><br />What definition are they using?<br /><br />2. What happens to matter in a black hole? <br /><br />Susskind, and others, note that there are two answers - and both may be right: either whatever goes into a black hole is lost as viewed from our reference point; or whatever goes into a black hole remains from the viewpoint of one who enters a black hole.<br /><br />I feel that while what happens appears different from the two very variant reference points, nevertheless only one thing is actually hapenning - in other words, while appearances may be deceiving, truth is real.<br /><br />And I am not meaning to delve into philosophy here - I am talking about physical reality as determined by observations and logical deduction including extrapolation, provided the latter is valid in such extreme changed circumstances.<br /><br />3. Do the laws of physics break down in a blac

 

[Leovinus]

I watched this show yesterday and I'm not ashamed to admit that I couldn't follow all of it. When it got to the "alternate universes with no black holes" I just had to throw in the towel. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

Leovinus - Well, I followed it - but I don't agree with it. <br /><br />I think both Susskind and Hawking are wrong - but then who am I?<br /><br />See my opening post, but to be more concise:<br /><br />I believe information is lost in a black hole - but I am not using their definition of information - rather I agree with Susskind that the information is scrambled - but I disagree that said information is still there on the surface of the black hole in 2-d and that said information could be retrieved.<br /><br />I suspect, though, that Susskind has in mind how one can retrieve information from a somewhat scrambled crashed computer.<br /><br />It depends, I guess, on how scrambled!<br /><br />I know that Hawking's assertion of infinite parallel universe is faith, not science.<br /><br />Hawking seems to have the very blind faith he accuses us believers in God of having! <br /><br />To me, such musings on whether information is preserved or not ignores the basic question of how information got here in the first place!<br /><br />And that goes for any definition of information!<br /><br />And since our universe began in a condition similar in some ways to a black hole (huge mass, small radius), assuming information is destroyed in black holes - which may be true - leaves me even more in awe as to how so much information entered the big bang to start with!

 

[vogon13]

I have watched the damn thing twice (curse my omniscient Tivo) and still can't wrap my noodle around the alternate unverses with no black holes balancing out our universe, either.<br /><br />And I don't have much of a grip on why destroying information is a problem, either.<br /><br /><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>

 

[vogon13]

Hell, I creates piles of it, whys can'ts I'se destroys it?<br /><br />Does the information paradox tie in to the quatum interference thing that cares whether or not you are measuring something to decide which way it's a gonna go . . . ?<br /><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>

 

[Leovinus]

I consider the big bang to be the ultimate creator of information. Don't we need information eaters to balance it out? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

vogon13 - May I suggest a reading of a recent Scientific American article on Parallel universes - which is what Hawking postulated for preservation of information.<br /><br />I need to do that, but lack the time right now - time for sleep for me!<br /><br />As I stated (I think) - I reject the theory (hypothesis, whatever) of parallel universe. But I do consider universes could have been created without black holes.<br /><br />That would mean, though, that there would be no stars either - since in our universe the existence of stars depends on fine tuning of both expansion rate and the ratios of the strengths of the 4 forces of physics, including gravity which causes black holes.<br /><br />If gravity was even slightly less, no stars or life could exist.<br /><br />This very basic fact was ignored in the program.<br /><br />But I suspect there was some observations which led Hawking to his hypothesis - I wouldn't assume he just dreamt it up!<br /><br />Which is one reason I asked the question. I invite research to determine the details which are relevant to this and other questions.

 

[newtonian]

Leovinus - Sorry, I missed your post while composing mine.<br /><br />How do you propose "the big bang to be the ultimate creator of everything."?<br /><br />It does seem many consider the big bang to be the creator!<br /><br />But how, by what mechanism, could the big bang create information?<br /><br />BTW, death is an information eater - the various informational molecules decay at death into statistical molecules.<br /><br />However, I suspect Susskind and Hawking are referring to a different type of information - which you are likely referring to also.<br /><br />Would that be the specific fine tuned properties and laws of our universe which translate into the specific properties of the matter swallowed by a black hole?

 

[alkalin]

I did not see the program but that does not stop me from a few comments.<br /><br />I find the question as rather silly about information being lost coming from such people as Hawking or Susskind. What kind of dream world are they from?<br /> <br />A similar question is what would happen to matter that carries information that would fall into the sun, or the next level is matter that falls into a neutron star.<br /><br />I firmly believe that BH’s do not collapse into a point. They are just very similar to a neutron star, but have more gravity to keep light and energy from escaping. Matter is composed of definite sized particles that cannot collapse much further together than the atomic nucleus allows. The question is for physics are the particles of the atom point like or particle like? By the sound of their theories they believe they are point like. They are wrong.<br /><br />Let me entertain a few dreams as well. There are parallel universes where some of our matter can go and come back in various forms yet unknown to us. When we receive matter from the next parallel, it is in a basic energy form that contains no ‘information’ as we think of information. But here is again the potential to consider an aspect of theology, the whereabouts of God. That to me is a far more important question.<br /><br />Newtonian, I think your instinct is correct, there needs to be this overall presence that we think of as god in the field of science. It cannot be separated, although science has tried. But so far science has failed miserably in many respects. I predict that science without philosophy and religious value will eventually fail in its attempt at overall understanding of reality.<br />

 

[vogon13]

Maybe our civilization hasn't encountered 'anti-information' yet?<br />(although the Hoaglandites efforts in this regard are appreciated)<br /><br /><br />Seriously, though, let me propose a 'thought' experiment:<br /><br /><br />Let's imagine a universe, just like ours, but with a few subtle differences. The 'Big Bang' that forms this new universe is rather low wattage compared to ours. It creates only 6 photons.<br /><br /><br />Three travel away from their Big Bang in this formation:<br /><br />. . .<br /><br />180 degrees away, the other three travel away in this pattern:<br /><br />.<br />.<br />.<br /><br /><br /><br />This universe, is otherwise entirely empty, but continues to expand just like ours does. Over the eons, the redshifts of these photons increases, and their respective energies bleed away into the ever expanding void.<br /><br />Now after a longish time, the wavelength of these photons approach infinity, and their energies aproximate 0. They also recede from each other (transversely).<br /><br /><br />Where did the information (encoded in their pattern) go?<br /><br /><br />Is irretrievably diluted the same as erased? The information is non-recoverable in either case.<br /><br /><br />How can casuality be affected in this universe by the decay of the informationally encoded photons?<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>

 

[vogon13]

And let's call that the Vogon13 information decay paradox experiment.<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br /><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>

 

[oscar1]

>I firmly believe that BH’s do not collapse into a point. They are just very similar to a neutron star, but have more gravity to keep light and energy from escaping. Matter is composed of definite sized particles that cannot collapse much further together than the atomic nucleus allows. The question is for physics are the particles of the atom point like or particle like? By the sound of their theories they believe they are point like. They are wrong.<<br /><br />Fact is that massive stars do collapse into themselves. To exactly what size as opposed to their original size, is literally written in the stars. Atoms consist of smaller particles, and this may go on like in a wooden babushka. However, if we would know to what size a star compacts to, when becoming a Black Hole, we could also work out how far down an atom goes. Trouble is, we cannot even reach the nearest star, let alone the nearest Black Hole. I don't quite understand what they are trying to do at CERN, but whatever they manage to 'create' there could never resemble a Black Hole formed from a massive star, so that is not going to tell us much either.

 

[newtonian]

alkalin - I guess we agree!<br /><br />Note that I don't know what definition for information Hawking et al were using, but another poster on another thread posited the wave-particle dual nature of matter - and I added the specific propeties of said matter - as it is fine tuned in our universe to favor life.<br /><br />E.g., the precise ratio of the strength of gravity compared with the other 3 forces of physics.<br /><br />To me, the big bang theory does not explain how this information got 'programmed' (fine tuned, etc.) into our universe in the first place.<br /><br />And I do indeed see evidence of God in both the origin of the laws and also the specific properties which are so necessary for life as we know it in our universe.<br /><br />It is interesting that Hawking and Susskind are so interested in whether this information is lost, but seem oblivious to how this information got here in the first place!

 

[newtonian]

vogon13 - OK, what definition of information are you using?<br /><br />How is a big bang producing 6 photons?<br /><br />I agree that a slightly more rapid expansion than the near omega=1 critical density in our universe allows would cause any universe to disperse.<br /><br />That is one way our universe is fine tuned - it allows for various types of information, notably informational molecules in life, to exist and persist.<br /><br />Why would this be a parallel universe - sounds more like the hypothesis of multiverses....

 

[newtonian]

Oscar1 - Hi!<br /><br />Do you have any link/reference to what is happening at CERN?<br /><br />Yes, I agree that the specific properties of stars, which are all different [see 1 Corinthians 15:41 - "star differs from star in glory"], will determine if a black hole forms, and what specific properties said black hole will have.<br /><br />Note my hypothesis that spin rate of parent stars could make a singularity impossible within certain black holes.<br /><br />Compare, btw, magnetars.<br /><br />A program I saw today on UWTV on Hubble showed a number of weird shapes from stars shedding matter, notably the 1987A supernova photo.<br /><br />These shapes were not predicted (e.g. the hourglass nebulae, etc.). They are very different and illustrate how different star properties can be.<br /><br />See my notes on this program on my thread in Space Science section of SDC.<br /><br />I suspect such differences may exist for black holes also.

 

[vogon13]

Whatever kind of information can be encoded in 6 photons in two groups of three. (I wanted to keep it really simple so I can understand what is going on.)<br /><br />{I concede this 6 photon universe is pretty simple, but if we can't figure out what happens in that universe, what hope is there for figuring out the one we've got?}<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />It's a thought experiment.<br /><br />I wanted a zone where nothing could interfere with my 6 photons.<br /><br />Big Bangs might come in low wattage versions, why would they be a one size (large) fits all kind of thing?<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>

 

[newtonian]

vogon 13 - OK, I will respond two ways, using two models:<br /><br />1. Chance formation of universes by some mechanism, perhaps collision of branes. Or from scaler fields, as with Linde's model. <br /><br />In a chance formation of photons, would e=mc^2 as it does in our universe? That would be extremely unlikely by chance - the ratio could have any value by chance.<br /><br />Would the photon have a dual particle/wave nature as it does in our universe? <br /><br />Clearly a photon formed by chance could have any properties and obey any laws, or in fact more likely no laws at all.<br /><br />Chance simply does not produce informational coding, and therefore there may simply be no information to start with.<br /><br />Do you wish me to respond in more detail assuming a chance model?<br /><br />One could, for example, consider that the electromagnetic force in such a universe would have a very different ratio in strength to the other 3 forces of physics - if such forces even exist in said universe.<br /><br />2. Intelligent design of many universes. In this case, different universes would have different properties and maybe even different laws. However, they would all be informational universes, and fulfilling specific purposes - very different perhaps, but not random.<br /><br />In that case, I would doubt a universe with just 6 photons would be created since it would serve no purpose.<br /><br />In either case, btw, you have not considered any mechanism for producing said 6 photons by a big bang.<br /><br />Its hard for me to respond on a hypothetical model with no cause and effect mechanism considered for the creation of said model universe.<br /><br />However, from the above you will note that I conclude such a universe would only exist if it came about by chance rather than intelligent design.