Leonard Susskind Vs Stephen Hawking

[Jimmyboy]

Hi I am interested to find out other peoples views on the physics argument between Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking. Its regarding information being lost forever in a blackhole, according to stephen, but this apparently is against a law in themodynamics. Leonard says the information appears destroyed to the outside observer but is conserved as a disk around the BH. Stephen says info is destroyed but in the multi vers (where there are parallel universes to our own) there will be universes where there arnt any black holes so that particular piece of info is never lost to a BH, so conservation is preserved... and history isnt lost overall.. Any thoughts...

 

[neuvik]

It is truthfully an attempt to get money, a book with a shock and awe title that claims to take on world renown Stephen Hawking to make the world safe for Quantum Dynamics. I fell for it too... While Susskind may be a competent physicist, he is attacking something basically resolved years ago.

Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne wagered against John Preskill that data would be destroyed in a black hole, and totally unrecoverable. While Hawking did prove black holes evaporate over time, Thorne and Hawking claimed that the radiation would not be in our universe . However in 1997 Hawking retracted his statement, and wrote a concession that the data that went in to a black hole would eventually be returned to our universe….but the mass and energy would be in an unrecognizable form. I believe Hawking was supposed to give Preskill an encyclopedia of Baseball, but residing in England he could only obtain a encyclopedia of Cricket…
Kip Thorne still disagrees with Hawking and Preskill.

 

[Jimmyboy]

I havent read the book yet, I only saw a documentary on it on youtube.. it gave the conclusion that Susskind proved that info wasnt lost but trapped around the BH, while as I said Hawking said there was a parallel universe where info is not lost.. but in the doc it did say Hawking did'nt have much mathmatics to back up his theory so it was kind of indicated that he was just trying to get his own back on Susskind (in a way). So are you saying that Susskinds theory has been or is deemed as wrong or is it still really unkown..

 

[neuvik]

I havent read the book yet, i only saw a documentary on it on youtube.. it gave the conclusion that susskind proved that info wasnt lost but trapped around the BH, while as i said Hawking said there was a parallel universe where info is not lost..but in the doc it did say Hawking didnt have much mathmatics to back up his theory so it was kind of indicated that he was just trying to get his own back on susskind (in a way)…

Uhhh....The mathematics Hawking used in describing black holes are very involved....The paradox left to the fate of information across the event horizon as well, is very involved. I don’t recall Susskind claiming Hawking lacked the mathematics in his former declaration that information is lost. Can you post the documentary link?

Susskind is using String Theory to accomplish his argument of what happens to information across the event horizon. However Hawking is not arguing for his original claim, he retracted it and wrote a concession complying with his other equations such as the entropy one, years before Susskind ever came to any conclusion. So…Susskind is really just doing an attention act.

….So are you saying that susskinds theory has been or is deemed as wrong or is it still really unkown..

Well it’s a theory…so it is unknown. String Theory still cannot marry the quantum world with General Relativity. And given that gravity is a huge factor in black holes….any practicing String Theory physicist will have to make a lot of assumptions . So the information paradox is still unresolved.

However, keep in mind Hawking is not claiming that information is destroyed anymore. He and Susskind are on the same side of the argument. The claim that Hawking made that the information would not be in our universe (destroyed basically) is nothing and is not being upheld. Susskind has made it a convenient straw man he can beat up and without worry of any retribution and gets to slap a famous name to his book.

 

[Jimmyboy]

No it wasnt Susskind that was claiming Hawkings mathamatics was lacking any substance it was the actual documentary that said it. It was called 'Hawkings paradox', check it out on youtube it was good. Maybe it is abit dated now, but I didnt think so, maybe you will view it different to me or maybe the actual documentary has changed the hole argument to how it was, i'm not sure.. From what I can remember of it, it made it seem that Susskind was on the right track regarding the argument.

 

[Jimmyboy]

You seem to have sceptical view of 'Susskind' Neuvik, if you watch the doc, it portrays him in a different light, where did you get your view from?? I have watched a few of his lectures on youtube also, he seems to know his stuff.. lol

 

[neuvik]

I said he is a competent physics in my first post.
He just is beating on something that has been resolved...

 

[aprilia1k]

Sorry for the late late post, not really a necro, but ... just saw the Morgan Freeman show, re: Susskind proving Hawking wrong, etc... which, yes, was a load of crap. Susskind is clearly way smarter than most of us, but this was so clearly just glomming on to a famous name... this egomaniac is clearly so very jealous of his more famous contemporary Hawking (IMHO). If I am not mistaken he is older than Hawking, and clearly resented Stephen's fame. "I (violently) opposed.." the "lost matter" notion, etc... and then, the gall of this guy to say "it's not even an idea anymore... it's a basic principle of physics... that 3-dimensional information is stored on a kind-of holographic film at the edges of the universe".... I am not a theoretical mathematician, but clearly this guy is spewing sci-fi crap and dressing it up in more theoretical math that no one could refute (mathematically)... He says it is a PRINCIPLE of physics that all 3-D matter is stored as a 2-D hologram??? You know that for sure, eh? If it's a principal of physics, then, you must have viewed this "film" at the edges of the universe. I want to get hold of this guy's telescope man. (I know it is math folks, kidding about the telescope)... hell, you could prove Santa and the Easter Bunny really exist with his math for crissake. A basic law of physics? Am I way out of line here? A 2-dimensional "kind of" hologram storing all 3-dimensional matter at the edges of our universe? Wow... this guy is either eating a lot of shrooms and LSD or just went way over the deep end. I do not mind THEORY, in fact I love it... but to call it a BASIC LAW OF PHYSICS????!!!! Get over yourself Susskind. Stephen Hawking, imho, never got close to being that arrogant and full-of-crap. Thanks for not flaming me too heavily.

 

[Jimmyboy]

Wish I saw that show.. will have to try and find it from somewhere.. I dont know about Susskind, credit where credit is due.. I mean he has done alot of other things. Also some of which where b4 his time (IMO)..I mean for him to learn some physics which takes 2 years to learn just for him to try and prove something, he must have thought he was on to something ay... But to take on the likes of stephen is no easy challange I would imagine!!