Hawking Radiation and Information
Barak
seeking a simple answer:
If Black Holes "radiate" as Hawking has proven does this
mean that information slowly leaks out of a Black Hole as it
"evaporates"?
If so, does this mean that communication from inside a
Black Hole to the outside is "theoretically" possible? IOW,
if an observer were trapped inside a Black Hole is there any
way, including the use of "Hawking Radiation", that he could
conceivably communicate with the outside world... even
faintly?
Sam Wormley
No.
Barak
Prove it, or retract.
Sam Wormley
Proof are for mathematicians.
Observers trapped within the even horizon of a black hole
ain't getting arbitrary messages out. See the Physics FAQ
(Black Holes section)
http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/index.html
Golden California Girls
Easy, the particle anti-particle pair start outside. Inside can't do anything
about that.
socratus
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – were assembled in a “single point”.
It means that all information also was assembled in a "single point".
And then there was " big bang " and all information flew to bits
in different sides.
Suppose , that every bits of a "single point", every particle
of a "single point" is the owner of some information.
Then there are two possibilities:
a) every particle has the own information and after 20 billions years
they accidentally united and created everything including a man.
The aim of it is to observe all accidental possibilities.
b) in the beginning every particle has zero information .
Question :" How does zero information further arrive to a
very high informational level ? "
========.
The visible matter of world is only a small part of all mass in the
Universe.
More then 90% of the matter in the Universe is unseen," dark matter ".
Nobody knows what it is and therefore it is possible to say that more
then 90% of information is hiding and unknown to us.
So our aim must be to study," dark matter " ,"dark particles " …..
================..
The Dark Matter is another official dogma of our astronomy.
/ V.H.Vergon /
============..
Black Hole……
A black hole is a region of space in which the gravitational field
is so powerful that nothing,
not even light, can escape its pull after having fallen past its
event horizon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
=========================.
But to give only such explanation of “ black hole” is not complete.
There is another alternative.
There is another interpretation of “ black hole”.
A “ black hole” is not a “region of space in which the
gravitational field is so powerful that nothing, not even light,
can escape its pull “ but…..
but region with very small density (critical density : p = 10^-29g/
sm^3).
And the detected material mass of the matter in the Universe
is so small (the average density of all substance in the
Universe is approximately less than p=10^-30 g/sm^3)
that the “ black hole” is only a model of our Universe / Vacuum
as a whole .
===========.
Question:
How does the information come from Vacuum?
? ? ?
Barak
Not so fast Ace. This Wikipedia statement by S. Hawking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
on the "Black Hole Information Paradox" says the following:
==============quote===============
In July 2005, Stephen Hawking published a paper and
announced a theory that quantum perturbations of the event
horizon could allow information to escape from a black hole,
which would resolve the information paradox.
==============end quote============
So according to Hawking information DOES escape from a
Black Hole via "Hawking Radiation". Hence I conclude that
it is "theoretically possible" for a person trapped inside a
Black Hole to send a message to the outside world albeit a
FEEBLE message.
In fact, this MIGHT explain the long conjectured claim of
"communication with the dead" which some people CLAIM exists
and COULD explain why it is so feeble and nearly undectable
except by particularly "sensitive" mediums? Not that I
believe it of course!
Androcles
"Barak" <Ba...@Democrat.org> wrote in message
news:k5mhb4t5fehqauk9d...@4ax.com...
>I have a simple question and am
> seeking a simple answer:
>
> If Black Holes
What Black Hole, simple Simon?
Barak
The Quantum Gravity Black Holes in your head to which the
mind retreats after death Birdbrain.
Androcles
"Barak" <Ba...@Democrat.org> wrote in message
Obviously you are a fuckin' idiot.
*plonk*
Sam Wormley
A person inside the black hole is on a one way trip to its
center of mass... And what theoretical possibility are you
referring to?
Observers trapped within the even horizon of a black hole
ain't getting arbitrary messages out. See the Physics FAQ
(Black Holes section)
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/
> In fact, this MIGHT explain the long conjectured claim of
> "communication with the dead" which some people CLAIM exists
> and COULD explain why it is so feeble and nearly undectable
> except by particularly "sensitive" mediums? Not that I
> believe it of course!
Get over it... the dead are dead.
Sam Wormley
There may be information of some kind in the hawking radiation
relating to the properties of the black hole... but that's
not the same as a person sending an arbitrary message.
Sam Wormley
What's a "Quantum Gravity Black Hole"?
G=EMC^2 Glazier
a second before a particle enters the event horizon. This helps duel
particle theory,for one goes inside the black hole and the other kicked
back into space at 99.999999999999999999 of c bert
Sam Wormley
Why do you post bullshit, Herb?
Some background on "Hawking radiation"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html
gb
The radiation is stirred by activity. A black hole is anything
but stand still, it is a heavy body in motion. The radiation does
not (would not) come from within but from its activity. Such a large
object builds activity with its surroundings, and the activity
generates
radioactive pulses, microwaves. Otherwise most black holes sit
in quiet space like our Sun. You move an object near the speed of
light, it generates radioactive waves.
gb
This radioactivity I described would come from inside and is leaking
according to Hawking. This means in terms of what I said is that
the radioactivity produced outside of the black hole comes from
energy within, so as you state, mysteriously energy evaporates.
If the energy is released outside of the black hole from its mass
and motion and activity, energy must transform from within the
black hole to the outside of the black hole. Mass is taken and
released as radiation. But this radiation is nothing close to a Sun's
emittion of rays and masses of rays, but X-Ray can be detected
signalling nothing but mass. Thus this is a dark emission of energy
and mass, a dark light of X-Ray energy that eminates from a black
hole, energy radiating mass in its radioactive bandwidth. It is funny
that mass can be generated thus with the proper bandwidths
(conclusion). As Einstein said: Nothing can travel faster than light,
and yet radioactive waves such as X-Rays are light that eminate
from black holes or broken up energy fields from the surround fields
of a black hole. Very high energy generates these X-Rays, this means
that space surrounding a black hole is highly energetic and active.
gb
Final note: It is very interesting, because weight (mass) can
evaporate,
here motion of the black hole is slowed by such radiation.
I am studying the process of weight generation mechanically
and not with high physics.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Barak" <Ba...@Democrat.org> wrote in message
news:k5mhb4t5fehqauk9d...@4ax.com...
> I have a simple question and am
> seeking a simple answer:
>
> If Black Holes "radiate" as Hawking has proven
not "proven"... "theorized".
> does this mean that information slowly leaks out
> of a Black Hole as it "evaporates"?
The "information" that leaks is whatever entered it from the
outside. It is a true black box, a vault, that cannot be known
what is going on inside.
> If so, does this mean that communication from
> inside a Black Hole to the outside is
> "theoretically" possible?
No.
> IOW, if an observer were trapped inside a Black
> Hole is there any way, including the use of
> "Hawking Radiation", that he could conceivably
> communicate with the outside world... even
> faintly?
Not with light.
If you believe in mental telepathy, and as long as that does not
turn out to be based on light propagation, and mental telepathy
does not either propagate through space or has no finite speed of
propagation, then communication which someone inside might be
possible. But I am not sure we could even understand the message
should all that work.
David A. Smith
Barak
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
You keep repeating the CLASSICAL result which we all know
but fact is the QUANTUM result has been debated for years
and is known as the "Thorne-Hawking-Preskill bet".
Hawking conceded the bet in 2004 and said:
Hawking Pronouncement
"In 2004, Hawking announced that he ..
now believes that black hole horizons
should fluctuate and leak information"
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne-Hawking-Preskill_bet
G=EMC^2 Glazier
ideas bull shit. People that can think call it chocolate ice cream. You
are a low wit and your posts over the years prove this bert
BURT
Hawking radiation goes infinitely red shifted at the horizon.
Barak
I don't believe in "mental telepathy"... 100 years of
controlled experiment has failed to find any evidence of it.
What I DO believe is that there is INTERNAL TELEPATHY
within a single human brain. IOW the "unconscious" part of
your mind communicates with the "conscious" part of your
mind. Moreover, if someone ELSES memory/mind structure is
strongly embedded in YOUR mind (i.e. a husband and wife
living together for decades or other close relatives. ) then
you can "talk" to that other person "mentally" and this is
what "mental telepathy" so called, actually is.
It is a REAL EFFECT but it does not involve DIRECT
person to person communication. It is INDIRECT
COMMUNICATION from perswon to person within a single
individual's brain. It IS HOWEVER "communication between two
distinct people!
Barak
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
Sod off Wanker!
Sam Wormley
Dead Paul
> I have a simple question and am
> seeking a simple answer:
>
> If Black Holes "radiate" as Hawking has proven
When was it proved?
--
___ _______ ___ ___ ___ __ ____
/ _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \ / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
/ // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/ /_/ |_\____/____/
gb
Hawkings says weight is released, the apparatus of energy exchange
rides on the external environment. the external environment
has an effect on the black hole's inner energies.by releasing
radiation externally, the black hole looses weight, and weight
and energy are a thing that seem to go together. The conversion
is not particle but effects momentum energies. This means
to you obviously strangely that particles don't arise, but the
physics of energy and weight that energy is bound to converts
from inside with the outside world. The thing is that when falling
toward a black hole, one is torn apart, but this effect is slow
and lasts hours. Or does being ripped apart come instantaneously
within a fraction of a second as falling toward a black hole?
gb
converts in
dimensions and is able to transform force such as momentum into
energy and external X-Ray radiation without problem dissipating
energy in Hawkings radiation form a black hole's mass transformed into
cold nuclear form energy or X-Ray. X-Ray is this thing that can move
through matter, it is a good escape form of energy.
Spaceman
Lets see,
First of all,
An object traveling towards a blackhole does not get ripped apart,
and it actualyl would have to be compressed as it got closer from
the simple forces of density and pressure that gravity causes.
Second of all,
The time it takes this stuff to happen can not be timed
by the "local" clock that is being effected by the problems
of the compression.
Time does not change rate and simple density and compression
occur to the object the closer to the center of the black hole
it gets, at a certain point, the density/compression factor
is too strong to even allow "vibration" or oscillations" that
are required to produce or reflect light.
Why Black Holes are made into these magical "time changing",
"event horizion", "singularity caused", "wormhole warped space"
bullshit is a complete utter stupidity when it comes to the simple and
the most basic physics.
:)
The most simple cause of the "radiation" is simply because
anything getting "compressed" past the oscillation wavelength
it normally can produce from reflection or emission of lightwaves,
will simply start to radiate at the smaller wavelengths until it actually
gets to the point that is can not "emit" nor "reflect" anymore.
Simple reality scares the crap out of "complex bullshit".
all the "time".
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman
gb
> "Barak" <Ba...@Democrat.org> wrote in message
>
> news:hkcib4932tuo9gk8u...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:22:36 +0100, "Androcles"
> > <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> >>"Barak" <Ba...@Democrat.org> wrote in message
> >>news:k5mhb4t5fehqauk9d...@4ax.com...
> >>>I have a simple question and am
> >>> seeking a simple answer:
>
> >>> If Black Holes
>
> >>What Black Hole, simple Simon?
>
> > The Quantum Gravity Black Holes in your head to which the
> > mind retreats after death Birdbrain.
>
> Obviously you are a fuckin' idiot.
> *plonk*
Out of control prejudice and tracking form behaviors of us and them
are not welcome. This is not a Hitler world of open racist prejudice
and system that binds rules over people in a system society
of Soviet Communist or American Power forms. Discrimination and
racism is a human crime. Name calling, pervert psycho form radicalism
and hate is disgusting form of expression for an international place
with foreign citizens. Without human educations don't racist or post
online, creep of system, mind of power and racism, tracking eyes
of class citizens and racist prejudice expressions of intolerance.
Europe stands for tolerance, toward prostitution in Amsterdam,
toward all things open and human orient and not racist aspects.
Humanity has evolution in countries and regions of countries,
but most of humanity does not understand racism and acts
of public discrimination, history's crimes in mind (Hitler, Mao,
Stalin, Ceausescu secret government). Uneducation cannot
be controlled, public racism is a criminal form that no human has
rights to racist stalk criminally or otherwise barbaric.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Barak" <Ba...@Democrat.org> wrote in message
news:ps0jb4ptucsg83q7o...@4ax.com...
...
> I don't believe in "mental telepathy"... 100 years of
> controlled experiment has failed to find any evidence of it.
> What I DO believe is that there is INTERNAL TELEPATHY
> within a single human brain. IOW the "unconscious" part of
> your mind communicates with the "conscious" part of your
> mind. Moreover, if someone ELSES memory/mind structure
> is strongly embedded in YOUR mind (i.e. a husband and
> wife living together for decades or other close relatives. )
> then
> you can "talk" to that other person "mentally" and this is
> what "mental telepathy" so called, actually is.
> It is a REAL EFFECT but it does not involve DIRECT
> person to person communication. It is INDIRECT
> COMMUNICATION from perswon to person within a single
> individual's brain. It IS HOWEVER "communication between
> two distinct people!
Is it mediated by light? If so, then no communication across the
event horizon is possible. And the thought of having my spouse
on the other side of an event horizon would be too much for me.
David A. Smith
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Dead Paul" <dead...@no.reply> wrote in message
news:g9c8lb$is0$1...@news.datemas.de...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:44:35 +0000, Barak wrote:
>
>> I have a simple question and am
>> seeking a simple answer:
>>
>> If Black Holes "radiate" as Hawking has proven
>
> When was it proved?
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501068
... classical black holes, but the "fireball" part fits (not
"proves").
David A. Smith
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
news:mUguk.320798$yE1.168073@attbi_s21...
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
David A. Smith
Craig Markwardt
> Barak wrote:
> > I have a simple question and am
> > seeking a simple answer:
> > If Black Holes "radiate" as Hawking has proven does this
> > mean that information slowly leaks out of a Black Hole as it
> > "evaporates"?
> > If so, does this mean that communication from inside a
> > Black Hole to the outside is "theoretically" possible? IOW,
> > if an observer were trapped inside a Black Hole is there any
> > way, including the use of "Hawking Radiation", that he could
> > conceivably communicate with the outside world... even
> > faintly?
> >
>
> No.
I think it's a serious question. I've seen talks by respected
theorists which pondered what happens to the entropy
(i.e. information) stored in a black hole, as it evaporates [*]. The
standard theory is the entropy goes in and doesn't come out. On the
other hand, the black hole eventually evaporates via Hawking radiation
to nothingness... so where did the entropy go?
In fact, the two photons of the virtual pair which form Hawking
radiation should be correlated, just as it is for normal pair
production. For example, their electromagnetic polarization. In the
"classic" quantum pair production experiment, the act of measuring the
polarization of one photon collapses the wave function of the other
one via quantum entanglement. The speculation I remember hearing was
perhaps the black hole can communicate its information via the same
kind of entanglement.
Whatever the case, I think it's a fascinating issue.
CM
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig B. Markwardt, Ph.D. EMAIL: crai...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barak
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>Barak wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:50:34 GMT, Sam Wormley
>> <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>> http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> You keep repeating the CLASSICAL result which we all know
>> but fact is the QUANTUM result has been debated for years
>> and is known as the "Thorne-Hawking-Preskill bet".
>> Hawking conceded the bet in 2004 and said:
>>
>> Hawking Pronouncement
>> "In 2004, Hawking announced that he ..
>> now believes that black hole horizons
>> should fluctuate and leak information"
>>
>> see:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne-Hawking-Preskill_bet
>>
>
> There may be information of some kind in the hawking radiation
> relating to the properties of the black hole...
>
.... I just said that....you're repeating me...
>
>
> but that's
> not the same as a person sending an arbitrary message.
>
....same difference....
>
> Observers trapped within the even horizon of a black hole
> ain't getting arbitrary messages out.
>
.. you keep saying it but evidence says otherwise....?
>
>
> See the Physics FAQ
> (Black Holes section)
>
... been there done that....
Barak
quit posting amateur crap.....we've all seen it
Barak
keep your statments to 25 words windbag
Barak
<gb6...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 30, 6:31 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>> "Barak" <Ba...@Democrat.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:hkcib4932tuo9gk8u...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 12:22:36 +0100, "Androcles"
>> > <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>>
>> >>"Barak" <Ba...@Democrat.org> wrote in message
>> >>news:k5mhb4t5fehqauk9d...@4ax.com...
>> >>>I have a simple question and am
>> >>> seeking a simple answer:
>>
>> >>> If Black Holes
>>
>> >>What Black Hole, simple Simon?
>>
>> > The Quantum Gravity Black Holes in your head to which the
>> > mind retreats after death Birdbrain.
>>
>> Obviously you are a fuckin' idiot.
>> *plonk*
>
>Out of control prejudice and tracking form behaviors of us and them
>are not welcome. This is not a Hitler world of......
<SNIP>
POST AMATEUR RECITATION SOMWHERE ELSE
hanson
this was the last time... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ec5685178750c91d?hl=en
>
and now Turdie aka "gb" <gb6...@yahoo.com> aka
"Dr." George M. Bajszar, is back and wrote in message
Turdie listen, your brother-in-ilk, Hebie-Herbie <herbertglazier
...@ ... webtv.net> will take very strong exception with you and
deny that "G=F" -- Hebie-Herbie Bert says "G=EMC^2".
>
So even if we equate you two blossoms of Jewish intelligence
as F = EMC^2, there is still something awfully unkosher about it.
"oye weh!"... "Trust Me!"... "Go Figure!"... but most of all
Thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha.... ahahanson
Barak
\(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>Dear Barak:
>
>"Barak" <Ba...@Democrat.org> wrote in message
>news:ps0jb4ptucsg83q7o...@4ax.com...
>...
>> I don't believe in "mental telepathy"... 100 years of
>> controlled experiment has failed to find any evidence of it.
>> What I DO believe is that there is INTERNAL TELEPATHY
>> within a single human brain. IOW the "unconscious" part of
>> your mind communicates with the "conscious" part of your
>> mind. Moreover, if someone ELSES memory/mind structure
>> is strongly embedded in YOUR mind (i.e. a husband and
>> wife living together for decades or other close relatives. )
>> then
>> you can "talk" to that other person "mentally" and this is
>> what "mental telepathy" so called, actually is.
>> It is a REAL EFFECT but it does not involve DIRECT
>> person to person communication. It is INDIRECT
>> COMMUNICATION from perswon to person within a single
>> individual's brain. It IS HOWEVER "communication between
>> two distinct people!
>
>Is it mediated by light? If so, then no communication across the
>event horizon is possible.
>
You're need to pay attention Smitty.... Hawking has
already published proof that information DOES escape from
Black Holes:
This Wikipedia statement by S. Hawking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
says the following:
==============quote===============
In July 2005, Stephen Hawking published a paper and
announced a theory that quantum perturbations of the event
horizon CAN allow information to escape from a black hole,
and which would resolve the information paradox.
==============end quote============
> And the thought of having my spouse
>on the other side of an event horizon would be too much for me.
>David A. Smith
>
>
Of course the escaping information is in the form of e.m.
radiation... that's what "Hawking Radiation" IS.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Barak" <Ba...@Democrat.org> wrote in message
news:hpqjb4pfpsbs2j3lf...@4ax.com...
...
>>Is it mediated by light? If so, then no
>>communication across the event horizon
>> is possible.
>
> You're need to pay attention Smitty....
> Hawking has already published proof that
> information DOES escape from Black
> Holes:
>
> This Wikipedia statement by S. Hawking:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
> says the following:
>
> ==============quote===============
> In July 2005, Stephen Hawking published a
> paper and announced a theory that quantum
> perturbations of the event horizon CAN allow
> information to escape from a black hole,
> and which would resolve the information paradox.
> ==============end quote============
The "information" they are talking about is the "information" of
how much entropy the black hole contains, as "invested" the the
outer Universe. If you had bothered to read the rest of the
theory. Hawking did not care about you sending recipes.
>> And the thought of having my spouse on the
>> other side of an event horizon would be too
>> much for me.
>
> Of course the escaping information is in the
> form of e.m. radiation... that's what "Hawking
> Radiation" IS.
Not just photons. Hawking radiation is pairs of all types of
particles, one of which is consumed by the BH again, and the
other manages to escape. Light is one of those "pairs" (since a
photon is its own anti-particle), but it is not the only member
of the menagerie.
And there is no guarantee that emitted photons were photons
*inside* the BH. If you want to send a signal, you aim your
flashlight to the future, and when the signal arrives, and gets
compressed along with all the matter, "cooked" until they can
tunnel... and you want to hope a signal obtains?
You'd have better luck sending a flashlight signal to yourself
through the core of the Sun. It takes months for light to make
its way out...
David A. Smith
Barak
<crai...@REMOVEcow.physics.wisc.edu> wrote:
It may turn out to be far more fascinating than you
suspect.
Researchers now suspect that "death" may culminate in a
microtubule process in the brain involving Penrose and
Hameroff's celebrated "quantum brain gravity" mechanism.
If so, it is further suspected that there are microscopic
"quantum black holes" where "consciousness" becomes trapped
after death.
If so.... the mechanism of Hawking Radiation and the
subsequent "leak" of information out of these Black Hole
states MIGHT account for the long touted "communication with
the dead" that we've heard so much about for 100 years.
Not that's what you can rightly call a "fascinating
issue", indeed!
Barak
The tide is running aginst you jackass. The incoming
Obama administration does not think racial/religious
harrassment is funny. Take a hike.
Sam Wormley
What evidence are you referring to? I'd like to read it.
Sam Wormley
> It may turn out to be far more fascinating than you
> suspect.
> Researchers now suspect that "death" may culminate in a
> microtubule process in the brain involving Penrose and
> Hameroff's celebrated "quantum brain gravity" mechanism.
> If so, it is further suspected that there are microscopic
> "quantum black holes" where "consciousness" becomes trapped
> after death.
> If so.... the mechanism of Hawking Radiation and the
> subsequent "leak" of information out of these Black Hole
> states MIGHT account for the long touted "communication with
> the dead" that we've heard so much about for 100 years.
> Not that's what you can rightly call a "fascinating
> issue", indeed!
Well Crap... you just broke the bull shit meter I borrowed
from Uncle Al... now I'm owing him a new one.
Sam Wormley
> You're need to pay attention Smitty.... Hawking has
> already published proof that information DOES escape from
> Black Holes:
>
> This Wikipedia statement by S. Hawking:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
> says the following:
>
> ==============quote===============
> In July 2005, Stephen Hawking published a paper and
> announced a theory that quantum perturbations of the event
> horizon CAN allow information to escape from a black hole,
> and which would resolve the information paradox.
> ==============end quote============
>
>> And the thought of having my spouse
>> on the other side of an event horizon would be too much for me.
>> David A. Smith
>>
>>
> Of course the escaping information is in the form of e.m.
> radiation... that's what "Hawking Radiation" IS.
And what is the nature of this "information"?
hanson
just like the last time... ahaha... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ec5685178750c91d?hl=en
>
and now Turdie aka "gb" <gb6...@yahoo.com> aka
"Dr." George M. Bajszar, is back and wrote in message
>
G=F. Gravity is not just a force, it is force itself. As force it
converts in dimensions and is able to transform force such
as momentum into energy and external X-Ray radiation
without problem dissipating energy in Hawkings radiation
form a black hole's mass transformed into cold nuclear
form energy or X-Ray. X-Ray is this thing that can move
through matter, it is a good escape form of energy.
>
hanson wrote:
Turdie listen, your brother-in-ilk, Hebie-Herbie <herbertglazier
...@ ... webtv.net> will take very strong exception with you and
deny that "G=F" -- Hebie-Herbie Bert says "G=EMC^2".
>
So even if we equate you two blossoms of Jewish intelligence
as F = EMC^2, there is still something awfully unkosher about it.
"oye weh!"... "Trust Me!"... "Go Figure!"...
>
<Ba...@Democrat.org> as a partisan fanatic, spouting
political shit as he cranked himself and wrote:
The tide is running aginst you jackass. The incoming
Obama administration does not think racial/religious
harrassment is funny. Take a hike.
>
ahahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA.. Hey Barak-Turdie,
if they have political Neo-cons and ZioNazis, like you,
in their camp, then I really must earnestly consider that
because of kikes like you, I must neutralize your vote...
and vote for Grandpa McCain & his pretty Alaska Babe
instead of your favorites, the 2 well tanned white boys.
>
Now how about that awfully unkosher F = EMC^2?
Only you or Hebie Herbie can bring forth an answer
because neither your 2 well tanned white boys, nor
nor Grandpa John, the successful cradle robber
would have an answer why F should be EMC^2
"Trust Me!"... "Go Figure!", Turdie, you old kike.
Thanks for the laughs, Turdie... hahaha.... ahahanson
>
PS:
It is beyond me that you do not have the greatest of
sympathies, understanding & adoration for Grandpa
John. Look at that splendidly hormonal running mate
selection he made. Have you taken a look at his wife?
What a supreme cocksmanship Grandpa John has
demonstrated here. An old ugly one with money and
a young pretty for the ride... ahahaha.. ahahahaha
It's like having a cake and eat it too.. and that is what
cool Grandpa McCain and his hot Alaska babe is
gonna do for the country.. Let us have cake... ahaha...
gb
but you don't quite speak any language but terror and eye for
eye extreme fear and stalking and revenge and hate and zero
brain. Its been shown that such criminal behavior is a result
of lead poisoning, generally living in very polluted cities and
driving very old cars like in the 1970's USA Texas. Lead poisoning
destroys most of the frontal lobe and leaves a Texas 1802 bullyboy
American psycho in all aspects confronting due to a disability.
gb
Without a frontal lobe all things remain in a state of fear and chaos
and all things are provoked from there, year after year, no change.
But not all have utter complete frontal lobe damage. Forming a cult
of hate, primarily Uncle Al relations run out in time into cyber
terror
and lawsuits and really accumulating worries from all over the net.
gb
violation of rights, human and otherwise. You are seeking jail, why
the terror of eye for eye?
Any human consciousness is bizarrly racistly covered by addiction to
stalk
and frame (psycho).
Greg Neill
> You keep repeating the CLASSICAL result which we all know
> but fact is the QUANTUM result has been debated for years
> and is known as the "Thorne-Hawking-Preskill bet".
> Hawking conceded the bet in 2004 and said:
>
> Hawking Pronouncement
> "In 2004, Hawking announced that he ..
> now believes that black hole horizons
> should fluctuate and leak information"
>
> see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne-Hawking-Preskill_bet
That information could only pertain to the quantum states
of the things that fell into the hole (remnant information),
not to any form of signal generated inside the event horizon.
Since *all* trajectories inside the event horizon lead to
the singularity, there is no path for any possible signal
to take from anywhere below to anywhere above (or even up
to) the event horizon.
It's not like a ceiling that you can rise up to but not
beyond; once inside the vent horizon, *nothing* can move
in an outward direction from *any* point within.
It is analagous to the progression of time that we experience.
Towards the singularity is the direction that all things must
move, just as towards the future is the unavoidable direction
that time flows.
Barak
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
No problem, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
where Hawking says:
"In July 2005, Stephen Hawking published a paper and
announced a theory that quantum perturbations of the
event horizon could allow information to escape from
a black hole, which would resolve the information
paradox."
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne-Hawking-Preskill_bet
where Hawking says:
" Hawking ... believes that black hole horizons
should fluctuate and leak information"
I'll take Hawking's computational evidence over your hand
waving opinion since your statement VIOLATES the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics while his opinion AGREES with it!
HANSON: quit posting antisemitism to Physics
<han...@quick.net> wrote:
>AHAHA... the dumb kike cranked himself again... AHAHA... ....
<SNIP>
Greg Neill
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:40:35 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com
> \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear Barak:
>>
>> "Barak" <Ba...@Democrat.org> wrote in message
>>> I have a simple question and am
>>> seeking a simple answer:
>>>
>>> If Black Holes "radiate" as Hawking has proven
>>
>>
>>> does this mean that information slowly leaks out
>>> of a Black Hole as it "evaporates"?
>>
>> outside. It is a true black box, a vault, that cannot be known
>> what is going on inside.
>>
>>> If so, does this mean that communication from
>>> inside a Black Hole to the outside is
>>> "theoretically" possible?
>>
>>
>>> IOW, if an observer were trapped inside a Black
>>> Hole is there any way, including the use of
>>> "Hawking Radiation", that he could conceivably
>>> communicate with the outside world... even
>>> faintly?
>>
>>
>> If you believe in mental telepathy, and as long as that does not
>> turn out to be based on light propagation, and mental telepathy
>> does not either propagate through space or has no finite speed of
>> propagation, then communication which someone inside might be
>> possible. But I am not sure we could even understand the message
>> should all that work.
>>
>> David A. Smith
>>
> I don't believe in "mental telepathy"... 100 years of
> controlled experiment has failed to find any evidence of it.
> What I DO believe is that there is INTERNAL TELEPATHY
> within a single human brain. IOW the "unconscious" part of
> your mind communicates with the "conscious" part of your
> mind. Moreover, if someone ELSES memory/mind structure is
> strongly embedded in YOUR mind (i.e. a husband and wife
> living together for decades or other close relatives. ) then
> you can "talk" to that other person "mentally" and this is
> what "mental telepathy" so called, actually is.
> It is a REAL EFFECT but it does not involve DIRECT
> person to person communication. It is INDIRECT
> COMMUNICATION from perswon to person within a single
> individual's brain. It IS HOWEVER "communication between two
> distinct people!
In other words, you stop listening to what your wife is
saying and substitute what you *wish* she were saying.
That way you can convincingly argue to yourself that she
said it was okay for you to go to the nudy bar with your
buds rather than visit your mother inlaw.
Barak
It can be anything related to what's going on inside the
Black Hole... only requirement is that the total entropy
out (information out) must be equal in SIZE to the total
entropy in (information in).
The 2nd Law only requires the ULTIMATE QUANTITY of the
information has to be (ultimately) equal. As for the
CONTENT of the information, that is an unrestrained variable
and certainly COULD contain a message from an unfortunate
astronaught saying:
"I'm still alive, but I'm trapped in a Black Hole
and can never return, but don't worry
because the place is a Paradise and I've
achieved a state of 'eternal life'
(full life) before I reach the Singularity".
Barak
<gnei...@MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
>Barak wrote:
>
>> You keep repeating the CLASSICAL result which we all know
>> but fact is the QUANTUM result has been debated for years
>> and is known as the "Thorne-Hawking-Preskill bet".
>> Hawking conceded the bet in 2004 and said:
>>
>> Hawking Pronouncement
>> "In 2004, Hawking announced that he ..
>> now believes that black hole horizons
>> should fluctuate and leak information"
>>
>> see:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorne-Hawking-Preskill_bet
>
>That information could only pertain to the quantum states
>of the things that fell into the hole (remnant information),
Na, na, na.... it's true the entropy depends on the
quantum states and that's constrained by the 2nd Law, but
the CONTENT of a message depends on the sequence and
temporal location of the quantum states and that is totally
UNCONSTRAINED under the 2nd Law.
What you've just said is equivalent to saying the
information in a sentence is constrained by the 26 letters
of the alphabet..... it's not.... it depends on the
particular sequential arrangement of those 26 letters.
<snip>
Barak
That's also possible.... BUT.... it is also possible that
the message depends uniquely on the construct and content of
the "phantom personality" that is embedded in your mind and
that ORIGINATED in the other persons real life speech and
behavior during her lifetime.
hanson
>
... ahahahaha.. So you have something against
free speech now, you 2-faced kike?...ahahaha...
& you begin to sing like your broser-in-ilk does here:
< http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1842edc4f > or in
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO_qkUrtAIg >
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=neocon+war+party%22&so=0
because of this post below where you fucked yourself
with your political proselytizing... ahahahaha...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/0e88f2d11a50f910?hl=en:
>
<han...@quick.net> wrote:
>>AHAHA... Turdie, the dumb kike poster [who see hinself
>> as "Barak"... ahahaha] cranked himself again... AHAHA...
> <SNIP>
>
Turdie, aka "Barak" wrote:
"HANSON: quit posting antisemitism to Physics"
said Turdie aka <Ba...@Democrat.org> who wrote in:
news:8kckb45l1jd4ad29h...@4ax.com...
>
hanson wrote:
Why, you fucking control freak? I don't post any Anti-Semitism
anywhere. I merely report what Jews and kikes have said
publicly about themselves, you pitiful 2-faced pig.
>
The only people who cause and spread anti-Semitism are
Jews themselves.
In fact Anti-Semitism is a highly sought after and extremely
desirable & precious commodity by/for the Jewish leadership.
Ex- Prime minister, Ariel Sharon, the great Israeli patriot,
knew the game all too well when he said in this interview:
< http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/04/1003.shtml > or in
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/be8452e683364a49 >
>
::Sharon:: ** I will do all I can to increase Anti-Semitism **, and be
::Sharon:: prepared to absorb the Yids I will force to flee to this
::Sharon:: country [IL] and teach them to be a light unto the gentiles.
::Sharon::
::Sharon:: We are **Judeo-Nazis**.We might use nuclear arms.
::Sharon:: .... we might go wild and burn all the oil fields in the
::Sharon:: Middle East! --- We might start World War Three.
::Sharon:: I am disgrace to humanity, I don't mind, on the contrary.
::Sharon:: You can call me anything you like. Call me a monster
::Sharon:: or a murderer. Just note that I don't hate Arabs. On the
::Sharon:: contrary. Personally, I am much more at ease with them.
::Sharon:: It's ***the Yids that are all twisted***. In order to straighten
::Sharon:: them out you have to first bend them sharply the other
::Sharon:: way. That, in brief, is my whole ideology.
::Sharon::
::Sharon:: ...Darkness is falling again. And we know what
::Sharon:: happens to a Jew who stays out in the dark. Let them
::Sharon:: be afraid, let them suffer. They should hurry home before
::Sharon:: it gets really dark. Jews don't grasp things quickly.
::Sharon:: I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel,
::Sharon:: to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora
::Sharon:: Jews, [the US Ashkenazis], so that they will be forced to
::Sharon:: run [home] to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one
::Sharon:: or two synagogues here and there, I don't care. What you
::Sharon:: lot don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is
::Sharon:: not finished yet, far from it. So I am an anti-Semite.
::Sharon:: I don't mind.
>
To boot, now that your beytsim fell off and gummed up your
works, you 2-faced Dreidel... WHY DID I NOT HEAR YOU
tell to these kikes below to stop posting to s.p. when they
posted this to sci.phics, you miserable 2-faced Zio-Nazi
control freak?...
>
Bob Kolker, the kike, said:
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/82caaf5ff6e0038c >
::BK:: "I advocate wide scale genocide on the Moslems", after,
::BK:: on Oct. 18, 04, in news:2tm3f7F...@uni-berlin.de
::BK:: he said "the obvious [final] solution is to kill them all" ... &
::BK:: urges in news:2rfqqdF...@uni-berlin.de on 09-23-04,
::BK:: "to put all Xians into asylums for their belief in Christianity".
>
Uncle Alan Schwartz, the kike, said:
< http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.mensa/msg/572674e5060b55a3 >
::Al:: "DEATH to the poor. -- DEATH to the sick. -- DEATH to
::Al:: every cripple. DEATH to every retard. -- DEATH to every
::Al:: addict. -- DEATH to the queer and infected. -- DEATH
::Al:: to every Welfare parasite. -- DEATH to every Social
::Al:: Security parasite. -- DEATH to every prisoner with
::Al:: 10 or more years' prison sentence. -- DEATH to Night
::Al:: Basketball. DEATH to every sniveling conniving goddamned
::Al:: money-sucking Officially Sad sonofabitch in the world.
::Al:: DEATH to the entire Third World. Kill them all".
< http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/d05517e7f4de883d>
::Al:: "I have no problem with killing the now and future enemy. An
::Al:: Earth with 3 billion people would be a much nicer place to live."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/657dbe27ce06ca8d >
::Al:: Uncle Al especially enjoys earthquakes that collapse churches
::Al:: filled with worshippers
>
Kike-shit like that gave us ultimately 9/11, the Iraq war, the milking
at the gas pump... So fuck you, Turdie, you political fanatic , who
wants to suppress free speech... especial since you do know but
do not accept nor acknowledge that
**** There is NO difference between Jews & Nazis ****
See here why:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/f758a1ec75fc151b?hl=en
>
If you, Turdie, can't stand the heat, you fucking control freak,
then YOU get out of the kitchen, especially since you do not
even realize that even physics is just another socio-political
enterprise...
>
Go to bed now, Turdie. You seen to be loaded on something
that doesn't agree with you and makes you unhappy and
fanatical ... ahahaha... Sleep well and sleep it off AND
Thanks for the laughs... ahahaha... ahahahanson
gb
discrimination rights.
gb
in real life in
person, and you don't have to do it online. You can call them slimy
jews and
all kinds of racist names that suits only you and the house.
gb
> discrimination rights.
If you do a search on me online the first thing for months now that
comes
up first is your racist semitic derogatory stalking mania. And there
are
Ph.D with that name, not just me. It is called cyber terrorism.
Sam Wormley
<laughing>
marcofuics
> Suppose , that every bits of a "single point", every particle
> of a "single point" is the owner of some information.
NO no
In the universe each point has enough information for rebuilding the
whole universe.
Reflect on this... reflect :))
bye Marco
Greg Neill
That's not proof. That's theory, which in physics
can never be proved, only supported or disproved.
Also, you don't indicate what the nature of the "information"
referred to is. It's quantum state information associated
with the black hole (remnant of the states of the particles
swallowed). It's not a signal generated from within.
>
>> And the thought of having my spouse
>> on the other side of an event horizon would be too much for me.
>> David A. Smith
>>
>>
> Of course the escaping information is in the form of e.m.
> radiation... that's what "Hawking Radiation" IS.
Not only E.M. radiation. All types of particle pairs.
The mixture of the particles produced depends upon the
black hole temperature; the higher the temperature the
more massive the particles of the peak emissions.
Edward Green
I've never been clear on this alleged version of the 2nd law.
My 2nd law is simply a tautology which says that if we divide
observation into classes of indistinguishable states, where the states
have, well, an astronomically increasing number of corresponding
internal states, increasing in some sequence, that a randomly
wandering (internal) state is astronomically likely to continue up the
ladder towards classes corresponding to more and more internal states.
Now, if we are to say that a black hole shrinks the size of the state
space, being characterized by only a few rather than many parameters,
like a giant elementary particle, I don't see a particular
contradiction with this tautology -- the tautolgy said nothing about
shrinking the size of the state space: if we can do that, then all
bets are off on the random walk to classes of states with more and
more corresponding inner states.
If that seems to be our major beef.
On the other hand, I think even in classical GR, it is a somewhat
naive view to hold that all black holes are characterized by a few
fundamental parameters. At least I've seen claims that calculations
dealing with the collapse of non-spherically symmetric mass
distributions show wild fluctuations, and lots of nice "information".
No, I don't know how the "black holes have no hair" theorem relates to
this claim.
OTOH it seems doubly naive to worry about classical black holes which
may be characterized ideally by only a few parameters, because we know
that any "black hole" in the real universe will be a quantum black
hole, and we don't have a good theory about the state space of such
beasts.
Again, assuming that it really worries us that "information is
destroyed", which I don't think is really forbidden by a sensible
formulation of the second law. The second law says a cockroach
wandering into every larger and more intricate mazes has a vanishing
probability of finding its way back out again into the simpler mazes
(a cockroach leaving no pherohormone trails, anyway :-). This version
_doesn't_ say anything about the likelihood of something outside the
world of the cockroach and maze simply wadding the whole thing up into
a ball, and tossing it into the trash. No statistical paradox there.
There are so many unknowns here, and even the worst possible case
(information destroyed!) seems so blase (who told us the state space
couldn't shrink, and why is that intrinsically stranger than other
ideas seriously considered by theorists every day?) that the entire
supposed paradox seems like a hurricane in a hawsepipe.
Golden California Girls
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 07:52:11 GMT, Golden California Girls
> <gldnc...@aol.com.mil> wrote:
>
>> Barak wrote:
>>> <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Barak wrote:
>>>>> I have a simple question and am
>>>>> seeking a simple answer:
>>>>>
>>>>> mean that information slowly leaks out of a Black Hole as it
>>>>> "evaporates"?
>>>>> if an observer were trapped inside a Black Hole is there any
>>>>> way, including the use of "Hawking Radiation", that he could
>>>>> conceivably communicate with the outside world... even
>>>>> faintly?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Prove it, or retract.
>> Easy, the particle anti-particle pair start outside. Inside can't do anything
>> about that.
>>
> Not so fast Ace. This Wikipedia statement by S. Hawking:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
> on the "Black Hole Information Paradox" says the following:
>
> ==============quote===============
> In July 2005, Stephen Hawking published a paper and
> announced a theory that quantum perturbations of the event
> which would resolve the information paradox.
> ==============end quote============
>
> Black Hole via "Hawking Radiation". Hence I conclude that
> it is "theoretically possible" for a person trapped inside a
> Black Hole to send a message to the outside world albeit a
> FEEBLE message.
>[lunacy snipped]
Information that existed when the black hole formed. Not new information.
It has been known for a long time that 3 things escape a black hole. It's mass.
It's spin. It's charge. From inside you can't change these so you can't
signal. They do change when stuff falls in, so they would change as it
evaporates as well. But you can't change them from inside so you can't signal.
Greg Neill
It's not the same thing at all. There is simply no way
to have any operation inside black hole convey information
due to that operation in any direction except towards the
singularity.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> I have a simple question and am seeking a simple answer:
So are most physicists working in this field. We don't have
one, though, and in the end the answer may not be simple.
> If Black Holes "radiate" as Hawking has proven does this
> mean that information slowly leaks out of a Black Hole as it
> "evaporates"?
No one knows.
Present calculations of Hawking radiation indicate that it has
exactly a black body spectrum. If this is the case, then it carries
no information, except for the mass of the black hole -- the black
body sectrum is determined by a single number, the temperature,
which is determined, in the case of Hawking radiation, by the
black hole mass.
If this is right, though, it presents a major headache to quantum
mechanics -- it would apparently allow a situation in which a
pure quantum state (say, a collapsing sphere of radiation) could
form a black hole which could then evaporate away completely,
leaving a mixed quantum state (thermal radiation). This is not
compatible with basic quantum mechanics, which requires that
pure states evolve to pure states.
(If you burn an encyclopedia, for instance, in principle -- although
not in practice -- all of the information in the encyclopedia can
be recovered from a careful enough examination of the radiation
coming out, the ashes left over, and the subtle correlations between
the two. If you drop the encyclopedia into a black hole and wait
for its mass to come out as Hawking radiation, on the other hand,
this seems impossible even in principle.)
There have been a number of proposals of how Hawking radiation
or black hole formation might be modified to resolve this. The
suggestions so far are all quite speculative, though, and none is
very convincing. It is almost certain that in the end, the solution
will require that we know much more about quantum gravity
than anyone does now.
Steve Carlip
Pentcho Valev
Yes Honest Carlip, we should know much more about quantum gravity. For
instance, you teach that in general relativity the speed of light is
both variable and constant:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
relativity."
How about the speed of light in quantum gravity, Honest Carlip? Is it
both variable and constant again? Your brother Lee Smolin and his
sycophants at the Perimeter Institute seem to have abandoned
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another
possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved,
but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so
as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most
shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real
possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without
violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years
ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Barak
<gnei...@MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
That's an opinion... a cherished belief as it were.
Fact is, the disappearance of a BH with all it's
information violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and has
been the subject of physics debate for years.
A calculation by Hawking published in 2005 (above) shows
that quantum fluctuations at a BH boundary allows
information in a BH to "leak" out in the form of quantum
mechanically modified Hawking Radiation... in fact enough to
balance the 2nd Law. Hawking radiaton does NOT move
"towards the singularity"...and it is not "pure blackbody"
(informationless) radiation due to the BH quantum boundary
fluctuations ...ergo, a "message" could "leak out" of a BH,
according to Stephen Hawkings.... and according to my
intuition there is a nonvanishing probability that this
Hawking phenomena is (very tenuously) related to the alleged
phenomena of "communicating with the dead", so called, i.e.
the probability is not zero!
Barak
Thanks for the authoritative update.
I do notice that In 2004, Hawking announced that he was
conceding the Thorne-Hawking-Preskill bet, and that he now
believed that black hole horizons should fluctuate and leak
information. In doing so he provided Preskill with a copy
of an encyclopedia of baseball.
Greg Neill
It is far more than a mere opinion. The mathematics
of General Relativity dictate this. It never a good
thing to bet against predictions of General Relativity.
> Fact is, the disappearance of a BH with all it's
> information violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and has
> been the subject of physics debate for years.
Yes, but it seems to me that you aren't paying close
attention to what constitutes "information" in such
a case.
> A calculation by Hawking published in 2005 (above) shows
> that quantum fluctuations at a BH boundary allows
> information in a BH to "leak" out in the form of quantum
> mechanically modified Hawking Radiation... in fact enough to
> balance the 2nd Law.
Yes, but again you are ignoring what "information" is
implied. You are making the unwarranted assumption,
despite several times having this pointed out, that
the information involved is not related to coded
information generated by processes within the BH.
> Hawking radiaton does NOT move
> "towards the singularity"...and it is not "pure blackbody"
> (informationless) radiation due to the BH quantum boundary
> fluctuations ...ergo, a "message" could "leak out" of a BH,
No! It is pure blackbody but overall balances quantum numbers
and related properties with the "stuff" that originally
fell in. Are you expecting that, if a sofa is thrown into
a black hole that a new sofa will be radiated away at some
point in the future?
If you throw a copy of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare
into a furnace, do you expect to find Hamlet coming from the
chimney in smoke signals? Yet burning a book is a completely
mundane operation that certainly doesn't contradict the laws
of thermodynamics. What's conserved is more basic properties.
> according to Stephen Hawkings.... and according to my
> intuition there is a nonvanishing probability that this
> Hawking phenomena is (very tenuously) related to the alleged
> phenomena of "communicating with the dead", so called, i.e.
> the probability is not zero!
That's just wishfull thinking (i.e. utter rubbish) on your
part.
Barak
<gnei...@MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
Unbeknownst to you apparently General Relativity is a
classical theory and therefore ignores Quantum Mechanics.
Hawking Radiation and "information leakage" is a purely
Quantum Effect which cannot be predicted by GR.
>
>
>> Fact is, the disappearance of a BH with all it's
>> information violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and has
>> been the subject of physics debate for years.
>
>Yes, but it seems to me that you aren't paying close
>attention to what constitutes "information" in such
>a case.
>
One doesn't have to pay close attention.... the fact that
ANY information "leaks out" of a Black Hole is a
counterfactual to classical GR.
>
>
>> A calculation by Hawking published in 2005 (above) shows
>> that quantum fluctuations at a BH boundary allows
>> information in a BH to "leak" out in the form of quantum
>> mechanically modified Hawking Radiation... in fact enough to
>> balance the 2nd Law.
>
>Yes, but again you are ignoring what "information" is
>implied. You are making the unwarranted assumption,
>despite several times having this pointed out, that
>the information involved is not related to coded
>information generated by processes within the BH.
>
>
There is nothiong to say it isn't, and in fact it could
be.
>
>> Hawking radiaton does NOT move
>> "towards the singularity"...and it is not "pure blackbody"
>> (informationless) radiation due to the BH quantum boundary
>> fluctuations ...ergo, a "message" could "leak out" of a BH,
>
>No! It is pure blackbody but overall balances quantum numbers
>and related properties with the "stuff" that originally
>fell in. Are you expecting that, if a sofa is thrown into
>a black hole that a new sofa will be radiated away at some
>point in the future?
>
>If you throw a copy of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare
>into a furnace, do you expect to find Hamlet coming from the
>chimney in smoke signals? Yet burning a book is a completely
>mundane operation that certainly doesn't contradict the laws
>of thermodynamics. What's conserved is more basic properties.
>
>
Not according to Steve Carlip (his post below on this
thread in sci.physicis.relativity) where he in fact says:
=========Steve Carlip quote=============
(If you burn an encyclopedia, for instance, in principle --
although not in practice -- all of the information in the
encyclopedia can be recovered from a careful enough
examination of the radiation coming out, the ashes left
over, and the subtle correlations between the two. If you
drop the encyclopedia into a black hole and wait for its
mass to come out as Hawking radiation, on the other hand,
this seems impossible even in principle.)
There have been a number of proposals of how Hawking
radiation or black hole formation might be modified to
resolve this.
===========end Carlip quote==========
(Barak Note: In fact Hawking 2005 claims to have resolved
this problem and claims that all of the information in the
dictionary WILL be recovered when the BH evaporates...
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
where Hawking says:
==========Hawking calculation=============
"In July 2005, Stephen Hawking published a paper and
announced a theory that quantum perturbations of
the event horizon could allow information to escape
from a black hole, which would resolve the information
paradox"
==========end Hawking calculation==========
which means that YES IN FACT if you throw a copy of
Shakespeare into a BH the information in it WILL BERECOVERED
when the BH evaporates including the history of what
happened to it inside the BH.
By the same token, the words of an unfortunate
astronaught who has fallen into a BH can ALSO be
recovered... hence a "message from the dead" as it were.
>
>
>
>> according to Stephen Hawkings.... and according to my
>> intuition there is a nonvanishing probability that this
>> Hawking phenomena is (very tenuously) related to the alleged
>> phenomena of "communicating with the dead", so called, i.e.
>> the probability is not zero!
>
>That's just wishfull thinking (i.e. utter rubbish) on your
>part.
>
>
I don't argue with amateurs. You're all through, go back to
your television set.
Greg Neill
GR dictates what happens to any material thing below
the event horizon, and the overall "shape" of spacetime
therein. Quantum effects deal with small fluctuations
to this general background. You won't find much in the
way of quantum effects affecting what goes on outside
the event horizon from more than a millimeter or so
inside. And *nothing* can remain still under the event
horizon, and must head immediately singulariy-ward.
Quantum mechanics do not overrule General Relativity.
They need to work and play well together, it's just
that we don't yet know how to put together a theory
that does this.
>>
>>
>>> Fact is, the disappearance of a BH with all it's
>>> information violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and has
>>> been the subject of physics debate for years.
>>
>> Yes, but it seems to me that you aren't paying close
>> attention to what constitutes "information" in such
>> a case.
>>
> One doesn't have to pay close attention.... the fact that
> ANY information "leaks out" of a Black Hole is a
> counterfactual to classical GR.
GR doesn't deal with information of the type Quantum
theory does. In GR, h=0.
If you like, you might consider the Black Hole to be
a single quantum particle with a set of properties
like spin, mass, and charge (a very crude idea, perhaps,
but possibly useful). I don't see you getting similarly
worked up over the fact that we expect conservation of
baryon number, spin, etc., with run of the mill particles.
>>
>>
>>> A calculation by Hawking published in 2005 (above) shows
>>> that quantum fluctuations at a BH boundary allows
>>> information in a BH to "leak" out in the form of quantum
>>> mechanically modified Hawking Radiation... in fact enough to
>>> balance the 2nd Law.
>>
>> Yes, but again you are ignoring what "information" is
>> implied. You are making the unwarranted assumption,
>> despite several times having this pointed out, that
>> the information involved is not related to coded
>> information generated by processes within the BH.
>>
>>
> There is nothiong to say it isn't, and in fact it could
> be.
No, it couldn't. That's the point. No information generated
by processes below the event horizon can make itself known
without. What *is* represented is the remnant information
of the quantum states of what went in, conserved as a sum of
properties of the created particles generated by the Hawking
Radiation over the history of the radiating black hole. For
example, you don't expect to get more mass-energy out of the
hole than went to making it up, nor more angular momentum.
Note that Steve Carlip does not say that the issue is resolved.
Personally, I don't think that information in the form of,
say, the knowledge encoded in an encyclopedia constitutes
"information" that must be preserved by a black hole. I
doubt that Nature is concious of what constitutes "knowledge".
What might be high art and intellectual gold to one being is
nearly random noise to another given any one type of recording
mechanism. The cell structure and DNA of a piece of wood
probably contains as much or more "information".
Nature might care about the total entropy but probably not
about preserving the particular orderings or combinations
of "stuff" that sum up to it.
> (Barak Note: In fact Hawking 2005 claims to have resolved
> this problem and claims that all of the information in the
> dictionary WILL be recovered when the BH evaporates...
> see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
> where Hawking says:
>
> ==========Hawking calculation=============
> "In July 2005, Stephen Hawking published a paper and
> announced a theory that quantum perturbations of
> the event horizon could allow information to escape
> from a black hole, which would resolve the information
> paradox"
> ==========end Hawking calculation==========
You keep coming back to that quote, but only interpret
it in the way you choose. I see it as a statement about
allowing the black hole to balance the books that Nature
otherwise demands be kept balanced when no event horizons
intervene. That is, the sums properties, entropy, and so
forth, which was previous thought to be lost "behind the
curtain" and forever deleted by disappearing down the
singularity.
>
> which means that YES IN FACT if you throw a copy of
> Shakespeare into a BH the information in it WILL BERECOVERED
> when the BH evaporates including the history of what
> happened to it inside the BH.
Well, that's certainly not how I interpret Hawking's
statements. Not even close!
> By the same token, the words of an unfortunate
> astronaught who has fallen into a BH can ALSO be
> recovered... hence a "message from the dead" as it were.
I would place that thought in the catagory of "not even
wrong".
>>
>>
>>
>>> according to Stephen Hawkings.... and according to my
>>> intuition there is a nonvanishing probability that this
>>> Hawking phenomena is (very tenuously) related to the alleged
>>> phenomena of "communicating with the dead", so called, i.e.
>>> the probability is not zero!
>>
>> That's just wishfull thinking (i.e. utter rubbish) on your
>> part.
>>
>>
> I don't argue with amateurs. You're all through, go back to
> your television set.
I can see that you are unwilling or perhaps unable to
change your mind and upset your pet ideas, and that you
are now goig to resort to personal attacks rather than
civilized discourse. In that case, adieu.
*plonk*
Golden California Girls
Let me put this a little bit more simple. What are the conditions say a
millimeter above the event horizon for this page of paper with ink.
It isn't anything we would recognize as paper and ink. The letters would be
distorted hundreds of kilometers as they made orbits near C around the hole. It
is much more totally destroyed than a paper shredder. But that isn't the end of
the story. At the event horizon those ink particles reach C. The Heisenberg
uncertainty principal applies. As we know the momentum so precisely, so we lose
all track of the position. The information is destroyed. Something tells me
that is is impossible for information to be conveyed into a black hole, except
mass, angular momentum and charge.
Lets look at something easier. A flashlight and Morse code. We can get the
photons in. On the outside we will see the mass change as we experience time.
But could an observer inside see our signal? We must remember that time is
needed for Morse code to be understood. However any observer inside the black
hole (if he can prevent himself from being splattered on the singularity) is in
a gravity field that is over C. Time for him no longer exists. He isn't going
to be able to read the Morse code.
If it can't get in, we can't expect it to come out when it evaporates.
Greg Neill
> Let me put this a little bit more simple. What are the conditions
> say a millimeter above the event horizon for this page of paper with
> ink.
For a large black hole the paper would be intact; tidal
stresses can be almost negligible there for a large
enough BH. A distant observer coould see the paper only
very faintly, as the light from it is greatly redshifted.
>
> It isn't anything we would recognize as paper and ink. The letters
> would be distorted hundreds of kilometers as they made orbits near C
> around the hole. It is much more totally destroyed than a paper
> shredder. But that isn't the end of the story. At the event horizon
> those ink particles reach C. The Heisenberg uncertainty principal
> applies. As we know the momentum so precisely, so we lose all track
> of the position. The information is destroyed. Something tells me
> that is is impossible for information to be conveyed into a black
> hole, except mass, angular momentum and charge.
The paper would not have to orbit, it could be falling straight
in. If the BH were not rotating, it wouldn't be caught up in
spacetime frame dragging.
The paper might, for example, be dropped from a ship that
is hovering above the event horizon. This is not precluded
by General Relativity, the energy requirements being
staggeringly enormous but not infinite.
For a large BH the paper might remain intact for some
distance below the event horizon, too. But no photons
from it could ever make their way outward. Eventually the
paper must end up "spaghettified" and rent into its constituent
particles before ending finally in the singularity.
>
> Lets look at something easier. A flashlight and Morse code. We can
> get the photons in. On the outside we will see the mass change as we
> experience time. But could an observer inside see our signal? We
> must remember that time is needed for Morse code to be understood.
> However any observer inside the black hole (if he can prevent himself
> from being splattered on the singularity) is in a gravity field that
> is over C. Time for him no longer exists. He isn't going to be able
> to read the Morse code.
He should be able to see the morse code coming inward,
blue shifted of course, before tidal stresses destroyed
him. If he looks downward toward the singularity, it
should look black, since no radiation should be able to
come at him "up" from the singularity. But perhaps there
is a type of Hawking radiation that can occur throughout
the interior that can spontaneously created photons in
his retina; they would necessarily be of a blackbody
nature, though, and would appear only as a glowing
background. Food for thought.
funkenstein
I thought it was a pizza?
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> Fact is, the disappearance of a BH with all it's
> information violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
No, it's not the second law that's at issue. If a black hole
evaporates into thermal Hawking radiation, that represents
an increase in entropy, which is not a problem. The problem
is more subtle. It's that the laws of physics, as we currently
understand them, are reversible, while the formation of a
black hole followed by its evaporation -- if Hawking radiation
really is thermal -- seems to be a fundamentally irreversible
process.
Describing this in terms of "information" can be confusing,
because it uses the term "information"in a technical sense
that is not at all intuitive. Roughly, though, the idea is that
entropy corresponds to "lack of microscopic information."
The second law of thermodynamics then says, roughly, that
macroscopically available information decreases with time,
which is no problem for black hole evaporation. But this
describes macroscopic processes. In both classical and
quantum mechanics, time evolution is reversible -- at the
microscopic level, information is neither lost nor gained
-- and this is not compatible with our current (incomplete)
understanding of black hole evaporation.
Steve Carlip
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> If you throw a copy of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare
> into a furnace, do you expect to find Hamlet coming from the
> chimney in smoke signals?
Well, yes, in principle. At the microscopic level, the laws of classical
mechanics are reversible. In principle, if you had complete knowledge
of the final state of the fire (including the smoke, the ashes, and the
electromagnetic radiation), you could run the process in reverse and
recreate the book. This is true in quantum mechanics as well -- time
evolution governed by the Schrodinger equation is unitary, which
means that it can, in principle, be run backward -- although in that
case you would also neec to know all of the quantum correlations
among the smoke, ashes, and photons.
Of course, this is not possible in practice -- that's really what the
second law of thermodynamics is about -- but that's a statement
about technology, not about the microscopic physical laws.
If Hawking radiation is really thermal, black hole evaporation is
fundamentally different: even in principle, you would be unable to
reconstruct the book from the radiation. It's possible that this is
the correct description of physics, but if so, it means that quantum
mechanics will have to be rather fundamentally changed.
Steve Carlip
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> I do notice that In 2004, Hawking announced that he was
> conceding the Thorne-Hawking-Preskill bet, and that he now
> believed that black hole horizons should fluctuate and leak
> information. In doing so he provided Preskill with a copy
> of an encyclopedia of baseball.
Hawking made this announcement at the GR17 conference in
Dublin in July 2004. His talk was very sketchy, though, with
a promise of more details to follow. Since then, though, only
an equally sketchy paper has appeared (you can get it at
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171). My own impression,
which I think is shared by many people in the field, is that
Hawking conceded too soon -- while he may well be right to
concede, he hasn't yet proven it.
Steve Carlip
Greg Neill
Presumably the final "imprint" of the book (mass, charge, forces,
etc.) left on space on our side of the event horizon radiates
away along with the final photons emitted from it as it passes
from view beyond the event horizon. If you actually run time
backward, that image would coalesce once again at the point where
the book would emerge whole from the hole, so to speak.
So, is the relic information that was left behind in space
enough to reconstruct the book from building blocks supplied
by the Hawking Radiation? There should be no shortage of the
necessary particles. Perhaps the information comprising the
book was never lost to us after all, being largely left on
the doorsetep, so to speak. Only the future fate of the book,
post horizon, is vanished from our ken.
Perhaps part of the problem we (maybe it's just I!) have
in considering this subject is in the way black holes "burn"
things. Unlike the fire consuming the book, the black
hole doesn't give up radiation assciated with its dollops
of fuel in a time synchronized way. It holds onto it and
grows colder the more it consumes. Even worse, it continues
to grow colder as long as the universe around it is warmer;
as long as the background temperature is higher than it is,
it will feed off of it). How long would it take to perform
a forensic study of the black hole sufficient to reproduce
its contents?
Suppose we could build a small black hole, feeding it only
encyclopedias for it entire life, then place it in an
vaccum isolation chamber with walls cooled to near absolute
zero. What would we record as it evaporated? Would it be
different if it had been fed, say, socks?
Perhaps we'll find out if or when the big colliders confirm
the production of microsopic black holes. It'll be interesting
to see if the decay products are random (within energy budget,
of course) or correlated somehow with their diets.
Pentcho Valev
> In sci.astro Greg Neill <gneil...@movesympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > If you throw a copy of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare
> > into a furnace, do you expect to find Hamlet coming from the
> > chimney in smoke signals?
>
> Well, yes, in principle. At the microscopic level, the laws of classical
> mechanics are reversible. In principle, if you had complete knowledge
> of the final state of the fire (including the smoke, the ashes, and the
> electromagnetic radiation), you could run the process in reverse and
> recreate the book.
Whoever told you that, Honest Carlip? Even if you had complete
knowledge, you will have to DO WORK to reverse all microscopic and
macroscopic aftermaths and therefore the process is irreversible at
both the microscopic and macroscopic levels. "Microscopic
reversibility" is just a lie repeated countless times over a long
period. Such lies, in accordance with Goebbels's principle, become
truths.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Golden California Girls
> Golden California Girls wrote:
>
>> Let me put this a little bit more simple. What are the conditions
>> say a millimeter above the event horizon for this page of paper with
>> ink.
>
> For a large black hole the paper would be intact; tidal
> stresses can be almost negligible there for a large
> enough BH. A distant observer coould see the paper only
> very faintly, as the light from it is greatly redshifted.
>
>> It isn't anything we would recognize as paper and ink. The letters
>> would be distorted hundreds of kilometers as they made orbits near C
>> around the hole. It is much more totally destroyed than a paper
>> shredder. But that isn't the end of the story. At the event horizon
>> those ink particles reach C. The Heisenberg uncertainty principal
>> applies. As we know the momentum so precisely, so we lose all track
>> of the position. The information is destroyed. Something tells me
>> that is is impossible for information to be conveyed into a black
>> hole, except mass, angular momentum and charge.
>
> The paper would not have to orbit, it could be falling straight
> in. If the BH were not rotating, it wouldn't be caught up in
> spacetime frame dragging.
No one seems to know how to make a black hole that doesn't rotate, especially
one as big as you would need to not shear the paper. Of course one could bend
the paper to the curve of the event horizon.
> The paper might, for example, be dropped from a ship that
> is hovering above the event horizon. This is not precluded
> by General Relativity, the energy requirements being
> staggeringly enormous but not infinite.
Yes, on the order of a quasar's output I would think.
> For a large BH the paper might remain intact for some
> distance below the event horizon, too. But no photons
> from it could ever make their way outward. Eventually the
> paper must end up "spaghettified" and rent into its constituent
> particles before ending finally in the singularity.
Yes. I also don't think it is possible to read the paper once it is inside the
hole. Don't think you can light it up and have that light bounce off it into an
eye.
>> Lets look at something easier. A flashlight and Morse code. We can
>> get the photons in. On the outside we will see the mass change as we
>> experience time. But could an observer inside see our signal? We
>> must remember that time is needed for Morse code to be understood.
>> However any observer inside the black hole (if he can prevent himself
>> from being splattered on the singularity) is in a gravity field that
>> is over C. Time for him no longer exists. He isn't going to be able
>> to read the Morse code.
>
> He should be able to see the morse code coming inward,
> blue shifted of course, before tidal stresses destroyed
> him. If he looks downward toward the singularity, it
> should look black, since no radiation should be able to
> come at him "up" from the singularity. But perhaps there
> is a type of Hawking radiation that can occur throughout
> the interior that can spontaneously created photons in
> his retina; they would necessarily be of a blackbody
> nature, though, and would appear only as a glowing
> background. Food for thought.
Ah, you ignored conditions inside the hole, specifically time.
Consider for a moment that observer inside has his own flashlight. He points it
up and turns it on. What happens to the light? Does it go up some distance and
then fall on to the singularity? No. It comes out the back of the flashlight!
Think of this. Our fantasy flashlight is a Angstrom from the event horizon on
the inside. If the light went up even two Angstroms before it turned around it
would have exited the hole, it can't do that, so it must fall towards the
singularity all the time.
Our observer can't stay put and have the photons from the person outside travel
past him. He would have to move over C away from the singularity to do so.
Interesting things happen to his time vector if he is able to move above C.
From the outside we know there is a distance between the singularity and the
event horizon and that the photons are going C. We know how long it takes to
get to the singularity. However conditions inside are different. As everything
is doing C towards the singularity all clocks have stopped. No time passes
between entering the event horizon and arrival at the singularity. If there is
no time, then you can't tell dots and dashes of Morse code apart.
Androcles
> If you throw a copy of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare
> into a furnace, do you expect to find Hamlet coming from the
> chimney in smoke signals?
> Well, yes, in principle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0SbVFxl64A
That says it all.
Albertito
> In sci.astro Greg Neill <gneil...@movesympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > If you throw a copy of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare
> > into a furnace, do you expect to find Hamlet coming from the
> > chimney in smoke signals?
>
> Well, yes, in principle. At the microscopic level, the laws of classical
> mechanics are reversible. In principle, if you had complete knowledge
> of the final state of the fire (including the smoke, the ashes, and the
> electromagnetic radiation), you could run the process in reverse and
> recreate the book. This is true in quantum mechanics as well -- time
> evolution governed by the Schrodinger equation is unitary, which
> means that it can, in principle, be run backward -- although in that
> case you would also neec to know all of the quantum correlations
> among the smoke, ashes, and photons.
>
Let's see what infomation is all about:
You have 4 apples in a bag A and 3 apples in a
bag B. Now, put all of them together into a bag C.
This sums S = 4 + 3 = 7 apples in bag C. Now,
Consider only information S=7. How can you know,
from this information alone, how many apples there
were both in bag A and bag B? The answer is purely
and simply: by mathematically adding objects we
lose/destroy information. Once you have the sum S=7
you can't reverse it. The best you can do is to list
all the possible branches toward the past:
1.- bag A had 0 apples and bag B had 7 apples
2.- bag A had 1 apples and bag B had 6 apples
3.- bag A had 2 apples and bag B had 5 apples
4.- bag A had 3 apples and bag B had 4 apples
5.- bag A had 4 apples and bag B had 3 apples
6.- bag A had 5 apples and bag B had 2 apples
7.- bag A had 6 apples and bag B had 1 apples
8.- bag A had 7 apples and bag B had 0 apples
Which one of these possible branches toward the past
was the real one?
If you throw a copy of the Complete Works of William
Shakespeare into a furnace, then you are "adding", you
are fatally losing information. The increase of entropy
is simply an "addition". The decrease of entropy is simply
a "subtraction". You destroy information by increasing the
entropy of a system. You create information by decreasing
its entropy.
> Of course, this is not possible in practice -- that's really what the
> second law of thermodynamics is about -- but that's a statement
> about technology, not about the microscopic physical laws.
>
> If Hawking radiation is really thermal, black hole evaporation is
> fundamentally different: even in principle, you would be unable to
> reconstruct the book from the radiation. It's possible that this is
> the correct description of physics, but if so, it means that quantum
> mechanics will have to be rather fundamentally changed.
It means that quantum mechanics physicists have to learn how
to "sum and subtract" properly.
jmfbahciv
> On Sep 2, 11:16 pm, carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
>> In sci.astro Greg Neill <gneil...@movesympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> If you throw a copy of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare
>>> into a furnace, do you expect to find Hamlet coming from the
>>> chimney in smoke signals?
>> Well, yes, in principle. At the microscopic level, the laws of classical
>> mechanics are reversible. In principle, if you had complete knowledge
>> of the final state of the fire (including the smoke, the ashes, and the
>> electromagnetic radiation), you could run the process in reverse and
>> recreate the book. This is true in quantum mechanics as well -- time
>> evolution governed by the Schrodinger equation is unitary, which
>> means that it can, in principle, be run backward -- although in that
>> case you would also neec to know all of the quantum correlations
>> among the smoke, ashes, and photons.
>>
>
> Let's see what infomation is all about:
> You have 4 apples in a bag A and 3 apples in a
> bag B. Now, put all of them together into a bag C.
> This sums S = 4 + 3 = 7 apples in bag C.
Nope. Now you have bag A and bag B in bag C.
/BAH
Zanthius
> > IOW, if an observer were trapped inside a Black
> > Hole is there any way, including the use of
> > "Hawking Radiation", that he could conceivably
> > communicate with the outside world... even
> > faintly?
>
What about with tachyons?
Zanthius
> If so, does this mean that communication from inside a
> Black Hole to the outside is "theoretically" possible?
Coding a message into hawking radiation would be just like coding a
message into the decay sequence of uranium-238.
Of course. I don't think anybody knows how to code a message into the
decay sequence of uranium-238.
Greg Neill
In his falling frame, I think he'd be able to operate pretty
normally in his local environment (for a short while!). The
overall motion he and his local frame is steadily towards the
singularity, and the light he thinks he's shining outwards
would in fact be following him inwards, just a bit more
slowly (from a hypothetical distant observer's point of
view -- hypotheitical because no real observer can see what's
going on beneath the EH) on the 'outward' leg. The infalling
object that he wants to illuminate falls toward and intercepts
the photons. Spacetime contrives to make things appear to
work normally in his local frame until proximity to the
singlularity makes it impossible to have a well behaved "local"
frame large enough to encompass the poor blighter and his toys.
>
> Think of this. Our fantasy flashlight is a Angstrom from the event
> horizon on the inside. If the light went up even two Angstroms
> before it turned around it would have exited the hole, it can't do
> that, so it must fall towards the singularity all the time.
Yes. But of course the flashlight cannot remain stationary beneath
the EH, and _must_ be falling inwards. Same goes for the light,
whose trajectory must also end in the singularity without any
outward motion.
>
> Our observer can't stay put and have the photons from the person
> outside travel past him. He would have to move over C away from the
> singularity to do so. Interesting things happen to his time vector if
> he is able to move above C.
His rate of fall will not preclude photons from outside overtaking
him on his descent. It might take a while for them to get to him
and overtake him, the fabric of space being stretched as it is.
>
> From the outside we know there is a distance between the singularity
> and the event horizon and that the photons are going C. We know how
> long it takes to get to the singularity. However conditions inside
> are different. As everything is doing C towards the singularity all
> clocks have stopped.
> No time passes between entering the event
> horizon and arrival at the singularity. If there is no time, then
> you can't tell dots and dashes of Morse code apart.
No, I don't believe that is true. Not everything is moving at c
inwards. The inward speed will depend upon the velocity and
trajectory at the time of infall, and even some limited
manouvering would be possible to effect, say, a spiral (but
inevitable) descent.
Sam Wormley
>
> What about with tachyons?
See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
BTW - tachyons have never been observed.
Zanthius
> See:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/tachyons.html
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
>
> BTW - tachyons have never been observed.
My question was not what a tachyon is, but rather if a tachyon can
escape from beyond the event horizon of a black hole, if it exists?
Sam Wormley
Nothing can escape from the inside of the event horizon. Not even
photons.
Zanthius
> Nothing can escape from the inside of the event horizon. Not even
> photons.
Photons cannot escape from beyond the event horizon of a black hole,
because the escape velocity beyond the event horizon is greater than
the speed of light. Tachyons are supposed to travel faster than the
speed of light.
Daryl McCullough
The question was about tachyons. Such a question is a little speculative,
since as far as I know, there isn't a completely consistent theory of
tachyons. However, naively there is no reason to believe that a tachyon
could not escape from a black hole. The argument that nothing can escape
from a black hole uses the *assumption* that all objects travel at less
than or equal to the (local) speed of light.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
Barak
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> Nothing can escape from the inside of the event horizon. Not even
> photons.
>
That is only a CLASSICAL result. Fact is, particles
including photons can quantum mechanically "tunnel" out of a
Black Hole through the event horizon.
In the conclusion (Sec. VI) of his 2005 paper located at:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171
Hawking says:
=========Stephen Hawking 2005==========
My work with Hartle showed the radiation could be thought
of as tunnelling out from inside the black hole. It was
therefore not unreasonable to suppose that it could carry
information out of the black hole. This explains how a black
hole can form and then give out the information about what
is inside...
=========end Hawking 2005=============
Hawking radiation is a QUANTUM MECHANICAL effect that is
NOT EXPLAINED by classical General relativity!
Zanthius
> Hawking radiation is a QUANTUM MECHANICAL effect that is
> NOT EXPLAINED by classical General relativity!
As far as I know the particle of the matter/antimatter pair which
escapes from the black hole is created at the outside of the black
hole, and takes energy from the gravitational field of the black hole,
which results in a decrease in the mass of the black hole.
Yes, somewhere inside of the event horizon some mass equivalent to the
particle that escaped should cease to exist, but how are you supposed
to encode any message from the inside of the event horizon into the
sequence of particles escaping as hawing radiation?
It would be just like trying to trying to encode a message into the
radioactive decay sequence of uranium-238.
Barak
<RESTORE SNIP>
>
=========Stephen Hawking 2005==========
In the conclusion (Sec. VI) of his 2005 paper located at:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171
Hawking says: My work with Hartle showed the radiation
could be thought of as tunnelling out from inside the black
hole. It was therefore not unreasonable to suppose that it
could carry information out of the black hole. This explains
how a black hole can form and then give out the information
about what is inside...
=========end Hawking 2005=============
Intelligent life can NOT exist inside a U238 nucleus but
it CAN exist inside a Black Hole, therefore there is no
analogy... there is no intelligence inside a nucleus to send
a message in the first place!
Hawking's calculation referenced above shows that a
message COULD be sent, in principle, from the interior of a
Black Hole.
Zanthius
> Intelligent life can NOT exist inside a U238 nucleus but
> it CAN exist inside a Black Hole, therefore there is no
> analogy... there is no intelligence inside a nucleus to send
> a message in the first place!
You don't seem to understand. Hawking radiation is generated by the
spontaneous creation of a virtual particle pair. Such virtual particle
pairs are created """randomly"" anywhere in the universe. Well, at
least as randomly as uranium-238 is decaying.
Normally this virtual particle pair would annihilate itself, but when
the virtual particle pair is separated at the event horizon, it can no
longer annihilate itself, and one of the virtual particles is able to
escape as hawking radiation.
Because particles cannot be created from nothingness, the creation of
hawking radiation takes energy from the gravitational field of the
black hole. This is manifested as a reduction in mass inside of the
event horizon.
> Hawking's calculation referenced above shows that a
> message COULD be sent, in principle, from the interior of a
> Black Hole.
Hawking radiation comes from the spontaneous creation of virtual
particle pairs, and this spontaneous virtual pair creation is just as
random as the radioactive decay of uranium-238.
Sam Wormley
Just because Hawking says it doesn't make it true... remember
in science we test predictions and let the data be the arbiter.
If a theory can't be tested... it isn't science.
Barak
<zanthius...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 3 Sep, 22:36, Barak <Ba...@Democrat.org> wrote:
>> Intelligent life can NOT exist inside a U238 nucleus but
>> it CAN exist inside a Black Hole, therefore there is no
>> analogy... there is no intelligence inside a nucleus to send
>> a message in the first place!
>
>You don't seem to understand.
>
>
<RESTORE SNIP>
>
=========Stephen Hawking 2005==========
In the conclusion (Sec. VI) of his 2005 paper located at:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171
Hawking says: My work with Hartle showed the radiation
could be thought of as tunnelling out from inside the black
hole. It was therefore not unreasonable to suppose that it
could carry information out of the black hole. This explains
how a black hole can form and then give out the information
about what is inside...
=========end Hawking 2005=============
No, you don't seem to understand...
Hawking's paper cited above shows that several QM
processes take place beyond your elementary recitation about
"particle pairs", including boundary fluctuations, q.m.
"TUNNELING" effects, and QM "corrections" to the so called
"blackbody" radiation that make it NOT a pure bvlackbody
state.
Hawking says point blank that "information leaks out of a
Black Hole"... go give your arguments to the contrary to
him... I accept his opinion over yours.