Hawkins admits to being wrong, information can escape a black hole

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">Sure it may transmit actions over a long distance, however it doesn't increase energy, or mass (i.e. gravity) so it doesn't help in this case. <font color="white"><br /><br />One turns left the other entangled photon turns right. Its the other properties of field strength and direction towards a strong gravitational field or away from a gravitational field that would prove or disprove this idea. The French did experiments on the effect of gravitation on antiprotons, they fell down, meaning they were also effected by gravitation in the same way that protons were but they weren’t entangle particles. Matter and antimatter wave function, can't get close enough to be entangled-K-BOOM. <br /><br />If we get to the point that we can entangle protons and watch them fall will one fall down and the other one fall up? Remember when one of them is disturbed one turns left and the other one turns right.<br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[Saiph]

actually: One wiggles, the other wiggles...but not in a meaningful way (no information is really transmitted). So, one random thing equals another random thing....it all averages out in the end. Entanglement is also very weak.<br /><br />Also, an antiproton isn't thes ame thing. That's just the anti-matter counterpart to a proton. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

>> 1) In the time domain, it takes so long for the dice to come to a stop that the universe is not yet old enough for them to come to a stop so we can measure what they say. Or 2) In the wavelength domain, some of the solutions can not be observed because the wavelength exceeds the Hubble distance. <br /><br />That's an extremely interesting post. I have for a long time thought that a possible explanation of gravity and intertia might relate to the size of the universe in the new reference frame. I was considering that there would be a Hubble wavelength virtual particle pressure difference responsible. I hadn't considered that the decoherence age for the entangled pairs might be a bigger contributor.<br /><br />I really like what this concept does for cosmology. I think that it makes for a clear mechanism for reversing expansion and ultimately collapsing the universe (all of its histories) to its new set of states. <br /><br />This requires some thinking about, but it seems like entropy, real time's arrow, and even free will might be a bit more clear in the context of this conjecture.<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

Let me see if I follow you, and let me see if I can cast your dark energy in the context of Guth. If I get lost...<br /><br />You have a super-cooled Higgs field that results in inflation as symetry is broken. The resulting expansion continues until a new equilibrium is achieved as per Guth. The original particles being created out of the symetry breaking energy. What Hawking calls the "ultimate free lunch." This newly inflated universe filled with newly created matter is reflective of only those quantum states that were coherent at the time of inflation magnified 10e100 times. The big bang occurs. <br /><br />So in your scenario, dark energy stems from those states that were fractional wavelengths at the time (imaginary time) that symetry was broken. They are not strictly speaking part of this universe because they cannot be part of any Feynman sum over histories? Yet, as fractional wavelenghts they can contribute harmonically to this universe - could that be dark matter effects in stellar trajectories?

 

[rlb2]

I like reading your stuff although at time we disagree you do back your claims up with good scientific data. Max Born was a thorn in Albert Einstein’s side. I actually thought they were both more or less right, Einstein Geometrically and Born quantametrically. <br /><br />Just as Einstein claimed that two different schools of thought surrounded how light behaves, as a wave and as a particle so is how our Universe behaves Geometricaly and quantummechanically. <br /><br />My thoughts is – “The key to the Universe lies in Morphing Neutrinos and how mass is made in our virtual Universe”……………To be Higgs or Not to be Higgs that is the question.. <br /><br />As far as Dark Matter and Dark Energy is concerned I haven’t changed my opinion about that for over ten years. It probably can very simply be explained by the Bose – Einstein Condensate - condense into the lowest accessible quantum state and its effect on the voids of space…………………The effect of the extremes of space on mass: Hydrogen, plasmatically, at high temperatures. He4 Phase II change, chillingly, superconductive / superfluidy with an apearance in a lab of antigravity tendancies.<br /><br />Long live Quantum Mechanics. <br /><br />May the Quantum generated geometrical-observed Universe be with you?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[jatslo]

Dark Matter is the missing link, find Dark Matter and you will solve unification. Dark Matter is right under your noses, and you can find Dark Matter, if you know where and how to look for Dark Matter.<br /><br />--- Jatslo

 

[yevaud]

<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <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>

 

[hayagreeva]

Sub:SEARCH Beyond for orderliness and Cosmic function<br /><br />I appreciate Stephen Hawking- one who is prepared to search beyond.<br />Take the phenomena as part of the Universe and replace the interpretation with Electro-magnetic Phenomena and Plasma occupies the Shape of the Body<br />(see my concept in UPE Model,IEEE-ICOPS-1991)<br />One sees a beutiful Cosmos clearly with identified regions<br />SRISTI- Creation<br />STITHI- Stability<br />LAYA.. Dissolution or Withdrawal mode.<br />Now apply relative concept .<br />Readers are welcome to see projections in my books.<br />I am adding DATA confirmation to above projections...now covering DARK MATTER (~10^3 LY)<br />Dynamic Function (~10^6 LY) in books under preparation.<br />Sponsors to organise a center for interaction are welcome.<br />Vidyardhi Nanduri (Cosmology for World Peace)<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

Here's a question that is bothering me in the context of your fractional quantum states. If inflation were brought about by an all pervasive scalar field that didn't diminish until it did... what would be the effect of the scalar field be on your harmonics?

 

[rogers_buck]

This is perhaps Quintessence, mixed with string theory and I know it wasn't your desire to do that, but I have this germ of an idea I'd like to figure out how to talk about better - if nothing else...<br /><br />You did anticipate me - the initial conditions for the cosmological constant are 120 orders of magnitude off. They have to be fudged... A scalar field that was primarilly potential energy with a negligible kinetic energy component (sourced by breaking of super-sym) would have little effect on -0- pressure dark or ordinary matter. However, negative pressure dark energy would be effected by such a field. Think of the equations of state for two fluids.<br /><br />Given that your zero plank mass (DeBrog wavelength less than Shwartz. radius) states would have negative pressure, what IF they are squeezed into higher dimensions by said scalar field? I don't think this violates conservation, and I don't think there are any special problems with such an egress given -0- plank mass. That's a big conjecture though admittedly. The actual equations for proving this conjecture are unknown to me, but I'm approximating with a plank sized wormholes abd that may be wrong.<br /><br />Here's the punch-line of the thought ahd associated fuzzy thinking. Imagine that these entangled harmonics hiding in the higher dimensions at multiple points in space-time become coherent (long after the scalar field vanished). These states would then be added to our universe - changing the cc as they emerge. Still, everything is conserved.<br /><br />This is really really stretching a weak point, but think of what this implies with respect to times arrow. The future is hidden from us until it unfolds.<br /><br /><br />

 

[nojocujo]

Borman<br /><br />I like inflation! Simple to the point spacetime expansion FTL but not allowing FTL within or on the fabic of spacetime. GR field equations leave no room for either expansion or contraction at the schwartzchild radius (defining FTL spacetime) hence the cosmological constant. It the field equations allowed for the radical expansion and I postulate that there should be a corresponding spacetime consumption Einstein would still be working on it today. He got it real close!!!!!!!!! When Hubble threw him the curve of the expanding spacetime due to the observed redshifts he should have looked at his field equaions and estavlished a gravitational spacetime consumption. It would have explained Hubbles redshifts and todays dark energy.

 

[nojocujo]

First I want to state I AM IGNORANT<br /><br />The Hubble constant attributes the observed redshift to a cosmological expansion but dark energy added an acceleration due to the high z supernova observations . I wondered how a redshift might occur and appear cosmological and also have an acceleration and attributable to existing known forces. A contracting universe would have an acceleration and a known force gravity that would cause that acceleration. But a cosmological blueshift would be the general rule instead of the exception.<br /><br />There was one possibility for the observed cosmological redshift and that was if matter was actually consuming spacetime and in essence you would have curved pockets of spacetime where matter was in high density i.e. stars, BH's and on a larger scale galactic clusters. Between these pockets of matter you would have expanses of spacetime with low concentrations of matter. <br />I realized that the Einstein Tensor may not address completely spacetime with the absence of matter. Matter in a sense anchors spacetime and reduces its' elasticity. I wondered if as matter accretes in concentrations i.e. stars, BH's and galactic clusters and along with the accretion matters' spacetime has to follow but what of the adjacent low density spacetime and its' adjacent spacetime ad infinitum? What happens to it does it appear to expand as it is stretched and as time passes and more matter accretes or aggregates there would be minute accelerations of the low density spacetime.<br /><br />Do or does the Einstein Tensor address both states of spacetime? High and low density and the elasticity of each? <br /><br />Does the tensor allow for the FTL propagation of spacetime beginning at he schwartzhild radius for both inflation and a deflationary model. <br /><br />Do the vacumn fluctuations as presented by Beck represent an attempt at modifying the tensor through QM? <br />

 

[nojocujo]

You do good work. I have some reading to do and thenI might pester some of the authors or all of them. Maybe they need to collaborate.

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">Washington, DC -- By a score of 135 to zero, scientists using NASA's Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer have compared suspected neutron stars and black holes and found that the black holes behaved as if each one has an event horizon, the theoretical border from beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape. <br /><br />The team found that X-ray light emitted from these two types of regions behaved differently. As expected, the neutron stars appeared to have a hard surface, which erupts in an X-ray explosion every several hours. The black holes appeared to have no surface. Matter falling toward the black hole seems to disappear into the void. <br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19223</font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[yevaud]

You should delete that, resize and repost it - it's way too big for the SDC frame. Kinda a pain to accomodate. <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>

 

[yevaud]

Geez, sorry. I meant Rlb. <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>

 

[rlb2]

Did this help. I reposted the image at 500 pixel wide.<br /><br />Note my screen never increased in size because of a 800 pixel wide image. Our settings or screen size must be different.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Spinning black hole leaves dent in space-time <br /><br />MIT scientists and colleagues have found a black hole that has chiseled a remarkably stable indentation in the fabric of space and time, like a dimple in one's favorite spot on the sofa. <br /><br />The finding may help scientists measure a black hole's mass and how it spins, two long-sought measurements, by virtue of the extent of this indentation. Using NASA's Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer, the team saw identical patterns in the X-ray light emitted near the black hole nine years apart, as captured in archived data from 1996 and in a new, unprecedented 550-hour observation from 2005. <br /><br />Black hole regions are notoriously chaotic, generating light at a range of frequencies. Similarities seen nine years apart imply something very fundamental is producing a pair of observed frequencies, namely the warping of space and time predicted by Einstein but rarely seen in such detail. <br /><br />"The fact that we found the exact same frequency of X-ray oscillations nine years later is likely no coincidence," said Homan. "The black hole is still singing the same tune. The oscillations are created by a groove hammered into space-time by the black hole. This phenomenon has been suspected for a while, but now we have strong evidence to support it." <br /><br />"The precise frequencies are determined by the mass of the black hole and also by how fast it spins," said Miller. "Those measurements -- mass and spin -- have been difficult to obtain. Fortunately, we already have an estimate of the mass of this black hole. By understanding the behavior of matter so close to the black hole's edge, we can now begin to determine the spin and thus, for the first time, completely describe the black hole."<font color="white"> <br /><</safety_wrapper></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[search]

Just a note aside for those who are still trying to understand what the hell are these guys talking about:<br /><br />Hawking Radiation<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation<br />http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html<br />Summary<br />In 1975 Hawking published a shocking result: if one takes quantum theory into account, it seems that black holes are not quite black! Instead, they should glow slightly with "Hawking radiation", consisting of photons, neutrinos, and to a lesser extent all sorts of massive particles. This has never been observed, since the only black holes we have evidence for are those with lots of hot gas falling into them, whose radiation would completely swamp this tiny effect. Indeed, if the mass of a black hole is M solar masses, Hawking predicted it should glow like a blackbody of temperature<br /><br /> (6 x 10exp-8/M) kelvin,<br />so only for very small black holes would this radiation be significant. Still, the effect is theoretically very interesting, and folks working on understanding how quantum theory and gravity fit together have spent a lot of energy trying to understand it and its consequences. The most drastic consequence is that a black hole, left alone and unfed, should radiate away its mass, slowly at first but then faster and faster as it shrinks, finally dying in a blaze of glory like a hydrogen bomb. However, the total lifetime of a black hole of M solar masses works out to be<br /><br /> 10exp71 Mexp3 seconds<br />so don't wait around for a big one to give up the ghost. (People have looked for the death of small ones that could have formed in the big bang, but they haven't seen any.)<br /><br />The famous bet:<br />http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/fu</safety_wrapper

 

[rlb2]

<font color="orange">In 1975 Hawking published a shocking result: if one takes quantum theory into account, it seems that black holes are not quite black! Instead, they should glow slightly with "Hawking radiation", consisting of photons, neutrinos, and to a lesser extent all sorts of massive particles. This has never been observed<font color="white"><br /><br />Excellent - I haven't read all of Hawking's work, I read his "A Brief History Of Time" but what was quoted above of all things makes the most sense, everything reduce to what we think is its smallest denominator - Democratis would be 1/2 proud. It is much more simpler than it seems.<br /><br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[yevaud]

Pardon me, everyone, but (probably taking the name from the thread title), you are all mispronouncing his name. It is Steven <b>Hawking.</b> <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>

 

[rlb2]

Thanks<br /><br />Fixed it, I can't tell you how many people spelled my name wrong over the years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Ron Bennett </div>

 

[yevaud]

I have a first name, two middle names, and a last name that are all <i>first</i> names (e.g., my last name is also a first name, "Arthur"). I have heard every (wrong) combination you could imagine, and a few that you probably couldn't even after drinking Ouzo all night.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

 

[search]

Hello everybody<br />His name is actually<br /><br />Stephen William Hawking<br /><br />So not Steven or Hawkin...<br /><br />Here is a biography<br />http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Hawking.html

 

[plutocrass]

Post deleted by plutocrass

 

[yevaud]

Thank you for the correction. <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>