The mental image of a singularity migrating from deep within a black hole to the event horizon provoked at least one exasperated outburst during the Stanford workshop, a reaction Bousso finds understandable. “We should be upset,” he said. “This is a terrible blow to general relativity.”
Yet for all his skepticism about firewalls, he is thrilled to be part of the debate. “This is probably the most exciting thing that’s happened to me since I entered physics,” he said. “It’s certainly the nicest paradox that’s come my way, and I’m excited to be working on it.”
Alice’s death by firewall seems destined to join the ranks of classic thought experiments in physics. The more physicists learn about quantum gravity, the more different it appears to be from our current picture of how the universe works, forcing them to sacrifice one cherished belief after another on the altar of scientific progress. Now they must choose to sacrifice either unitarity or No Drama, or undertake a radical modification of quantum field theory. Or maybe it’s all just a horrible mistake. Any way you slice it, physicists are bound to learn something new.
Reprinted with permission from Simons Science News, an editorially-independent division of SimonsFoundation.org whose mission is to enhance public understanding of science by covering research developments and trends in mathematics and the computational, physical and life sciences.
See what we're tweeting about
112 Comments
Add CommentThis is just a fantastic piece, taking on ridiculously abstract/far-from-experience ideas and making them come to life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have just one quibble. You follow just about everyone in saying that Einstein "ridiculed" entanglement as “spooky action at a distance.” In my ever humble opinion, that is a now distressingly standard mischaracterization of what Einstein was saying.
The original of that phrase comes from a letter to Max Born in the forties. Here's the passage:
"I cannot make a case for my attitude in physics which you would consider at all reasonable. I admit, of course, that there is a considerable amount of validity in the statistical approach which you were the first to recognise clearly as necessary given the framework of the existing formalism. I cannot seriously believe in it because the theory cannot be reconciled with the idea that physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance. I am, however, not yet firmly convinced it can really be achieved with a continuous field theory, although I have discovered a possible way of doing this which so far seems quite reasonable...But I am quite convinced that someone will eventually come up with a theory whose objects, connected by laws, are not probabilities but considered facts, as used to be taken for granted until quite recently. I cannot however, base this conviction on logical reasons, but can only produce my little finger as witness, that is I offer no authority which would be able to command any kind of respect outside of my own hand." (Einstein to Born, 2 Mar. 1947.)
Born comments: "I too had considered this postulate [that physics should represent a reality in time and space] to be one which could claim absolute validity. But the realities of physical experience had taught me that this postulate is not an a priori principle but a time-dependent rule which must be, and can be, replaced by a more general one."
Born's remark could be a motto for this entire piece. But while Einstein was a master of the pungent phrase, he's not ridiculing anything here, except, perhaps, his own mulishness in the face of all the power of the new formulation.
I admit, I feel like I'm becoming the guy who keeps shouting "but "data" is plural!" I do know that we're probably stuck with the image Einstein as this almost comical old guy railing against QM -- but it don't seem right to me.
[Exhales] There, I feel better.
That was actually quite informative, Tom. Nice post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea that information is not lost when matter falls into a black hole always seemed a bit strange to me.
The idea that you can throw an encyclopedia into the black hole and then , in principle, recover the information sounds totally unnatural and absurd.
I would suggest that physicists consider that the unitarity principle does not hold in this particular circumstance.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Fractal Cosmology
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
As a result of time dilation, how can matter ever cross the event horizon of a black hole? [i.e. An infinite amount of time passes to the outside observer.] Black holes are created by collapsing stars. If matter can not cross the event horizon, black holes could only grow by merging with other black holes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis would be a different type of firewall than discussed in the article, but contracting space and dilating time would eject the incoming matter as energy before it cross the event horizon.
Cramer..yes its an interesting paradox...matter traveling at the speed of light due to gravitation and yet time is zero at the event horizon...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact of the matter is that Alice, even though she's a big girl, will be gradually squished until she's the size of a pin head.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit seems that the emtire argument rests with whether time exists within the event horzon or not, at least as we know it. if not, then matter does not progress beyond the event horizon, in which case it is all stuck in a sphere at or just inside the event horizon.this would seem to indicate that no (singularity exists to begin with, and quantum entanglement is to be reasonably expected to either exist throughout the lifetime of the black hole, or not at all. maybe an examination of the frame dragging phenomenon and it's effect upon infalling masses; and changes in the spectroscopic nature of that infalling matter might lead to more insight in this argument? just a thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyear 2025
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeadline: "String Theorists Solve Long-standing Black Hole Information Paradox"
"In a press conference held at the Institute for Advanced Study, prominent string theorist E. Witten announced today that a small collaboration of theoretical physicists had finally solved the Quantum Information Paradox (aka Black Hole Information Paradox)."
"This announcement came on the heals of a paper published in the journal, Superstrings, P-Branes & Angels, entitled "Towards a Solution to Everything", wherein Wtten et al provides a definitive proof for exactly how many angels can actually fit on the head of a pin."
(Superstrings, P-Branes & Angels, Vol 6,903,143 ,No 1, pgs 1 - 5344. 2025)
There is one slight question. It involves the difference in interaction by bosons and fermions in a black hole. Alice will be obliterated since her body is mostly made up of Carbon which is mostly C-12 no nuclear spin which is a boson. Alice's proteins will also be shrunk into a singularity since most Nitrogen is N-14. Her only hope is to rely on her fermions like her Hydrogen molecules mostly nuclear spin 1/2, her Nitrogen N-15 her Oxygen O-16, Phosphorus P-31 to convert herself into a fermion particle and escape from the black hole. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you may have hit upon something here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this12 + 14 = "26" (C+N)
and if you flip those digits around backwards
(a 1/2 rotation)
you get 15 + 16 + 31 = "62" (N+O+P)
genius!
Of course we could just put Alice through the mathematical meat-grinder of an S-matrix under gauge symmetry and "Alice" rotates into "Dorothy with a pair of ruby slippers".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it that the window on the left of scientific american page(the like, tweet, redit window) always obscures the words on the page.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre the scientific american web developers really bad at their job?
Why cant it resize properly to stay at the edge and not overlap.
Quite obvious Einstein was working hard on the standard model, and noted they are separate. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. It in fact implies he understood the concept quite well, accepted it that it was real, but had categorised it as i mentioned out side of the standard model.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing that bothers me about the whole "firewalls" tempest-in-a-teacup is that we are once led straight into the realm of untestable pseudo-science.
The arguments of the "firewall" scenario are based on numerous explicit and implicit assumptions, and the resulting ideas cannot be tested in any definitive manner. Even if semi-adequate predictions and testing were conceivable, for every failed test there are two or more escape hatches at each turn of the arguments. The ideas being discussed are completely plastic and vague.
Moreover, the same intuitionless people who have given us 40 years of predictionless string theory, failed supersymmetry, no-show "WIMPs", and the astoundingly ugly "multiverse" fantasy, are same self-deluded prophets who are leading us into the "firewalls" roundabout.
Don't we ever get tired of the S.O.S.?
Does no one realize that the kings not only have no clothes, but are also lost in the cosmos without an empirical compass or the scientific method to guide their naked butts.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Fractal Cosmology
Discrete Scale Relativity
Discrete Scale Relativity
Right on Einstein!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll that Heisenberg meant is that at the quantum level measuring anything interferes with the measuring; light falling on a baseball does not significantly alter the experiment. Photons or electrons falling on a particle change everything. Statistics irons out the wringles, making things at the macro level predictable; it does not change the cause and effect principal of physics.
As for singularities and big bangs, face it folks, they are the very proof that the theories surrounding them are WRONG! If you can't explain them, they are fatal flaws. In fact, the big bang is term of derision created by Sir Fred Hoyle who, among Hannes Alfven and others, explain to the flat earthers of cosmology, the diciples of the big bang, what is behind the data that they use to come up with these supernatural claims. Good summary can be found here: http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
As for the imaginary Black Holes, Hawking, Krauss, Chapline, et. al. argue convincingly that they don't exist. "Due to random particle movements posited by quantum theory, black holes should slowly evaporate as particle-antiparticle pairs flit into existence at a point straddling the event horizon, where gravity is so strong even light can’t escape.
In Hawking’s scenario, one partner in the pair should fall into the hole, while the other should make it free, if only barely. Thus, over billions and trillions of years, the block hole should lose mass."
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/black-holes-don/
As for the fluff in this article:
"Cherished"? Are they in love, is their intelligence deluded by hormones? Physics is about intelligence, not hormones.
"Menu from Hell"? Looking for God, are you? In fact, that is what the "Holy Grail" hunt for the unifying theory and particles is, a hunt for God, some simplistic, hormone producing thoughts about infinity and infintisimal.
The universe has always existed and goes on forever. If there is a limit, what's on the other side?!
Science is not a democracy!
It is known that in GR there is a new physical phenomenon, absent in the Newtonian gravity - the real slowering of proper times in strong gravitational fields?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDue to this GR effect, the clocks in navigators on Earth's surface are going slower than in GPS satellites and this can lead to several tens meter mistaken coordinate determination, thus for synchronizing with navigators the atomic clocks in satellites have been made going slower artificially, only after which the system works correctly.
In the real collapsing stars, as close the surface to the gravitational radius, the such real and irreversible freezing of all processes, i.e. proper times, becomes stronger and stronger in terms of the cosmological world time t of the Universe as whole. The almost total freezing begins from the centre of the star and propagates up to the surface during short world time interval, while the surface is beyond the grav. radius, after which the worldlines of particles at any layer of the star evolves parallel to the t axis and each other. The such fully frozen object I proposed to name as "frozar" (frozen star), and GR does not predict any other object.
A collection of my discussions about frozars of GR vs black holes of Newtonian gravity see in http://dx.doi.org/10.9751/TPAC.4200-026, other abstracts there are in my LinkedIn profile.
Here's the comment I posted at the Simmons Science News site, at lease pending moderation...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, very interesting and, to my mind as merely a retired information systems analyst, very curious, indeed. I have great difficulty grasping physicists' conception of information as it's purported to apply to the universe. So, let me ask: is information maintained by particle collider experiments? It seems to me that no information pertaining to the configuration of the disintegrated matter can persist...
Conceptually, it seems to me that the physical conditions approaching the event horizon of a black hole become nearly identical to those produced by particle accelerators. Poor Alice would be accelerated to nearly the speed of light. Since this conflicts with the rules governing mass and velocity, as I understand, I suggest that poor Mary's atoms begin to heat up and vibrate to the point that they disintegrate into more fundamental particles. They in turn would eventually forcibly collide, disintegrating completely, similarly to particle collider experiments.
What happens to the mass-energy of particles collided at the energies of, for example, the LHC? It seems to me that, within the conditions of the LHC, the tiny amounts of liberated mass-energy must dissipate into space along with the particle residue that it once bound together in a persistent configuration within locally halted spacetime.
Considering the matter disintegrated as it approaches the event horizon of a black hole, its much larger quantity of now liberated mass-energy is not free to dissipate into space: it must be drawn into the event horizon, retained there, redirected to the focal point of its gravitational energy, the dimensionless singularity. Meanwhile, extremely hot, high velocity residual particle energy may be captured (perhaps in a 'firewall') in a magnetic field of its own creation, directed to the black hole's polar jets, where is is expelled as high energy fundamental particles.
(continued)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this process, there is no dimensional matter retained within any dimensional singularity, but the gravitational energy retained within the event horizon - directed to a singular focal point, or abstract singularity. This scenario avoids the problem of retaining dimensional material within a dimensionless singularity, while conceptually accounting for the hot accretion disk and relativistic polar jets of active black holes. I can't account for any information, since material energy is physically separated from its binding mass-energy, never again to be reunited, at least within this universe...
BTW, I came up with this idea based on a quip I heard, I think it was from Kip Thorne, that black holes don't contain any matter...
A firewall is a barrier that prevents fire from encroaching on another space. The author here seems to be using the term interchangeably with "a wall of fire," which is actually opposite of the usual meaning of firewall. That should be corrected to improve the clarity of the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you possibly link me to Krauss' opinions on Black Holes (either article or video is fine), I'm an ardent follower of his. I feel like reading some of Krauss' "pseudoscience", sometimes rloldershaw's "real" science is just too real for me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks
I think the way physicists view information is a little goofy, and I don't understand it fully either, but essentially.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisentropy = information
Low entropy = not a lot of info
High entropy = lots of info
or, the measure of the entropy of a system is proportional to the measure of its' information content.
This has to do with how many "states" a system can evolve into over time.
So, (and this is where we enter the paradox conversation) if indeed "information" is "lost" as matter falls into a black hole, (sweet Alice blithely falls through the event horizon unscathed and thus preserves the equivalency principal(GR)) then the universe is leaking.....entropy. And this can't be, that would be a violation of the second law. Or, at least, how physicists relate information to entropy.
So that's all the hoopla about "information" (I think that's the gist, but I could be missing something important.....?)
Now, you said..."Poor Alice would be accelerated to nearly the speed of light. Since this conflicts with the rules governing mass and velocity, as I understand, I suggest that poor Mary's atoms begin to heat up and vibrate to the point that they disintegrate into more fundamental particles."
There is no reason why Alice should heat up and fly apart as she accelerates towards the event horizon. There are no "rules governing mass and velocity" that require Alice to do this. As a matter of fact, General Relativity demands that: 1) Alice doesn't feel a thing (equivalence [or, gravity "is" acceleration])...2)that her view-point is equally valid..and, 3)right up to the instant before she crosses the event horizon, Alice and Bob would totally agree on the space-time lengths of all the measuring sticks around the two of them. (invariance).
Ooops, that last comment was in reply jtdwyer, comment #17.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Or, at least, how physicists relate information to entropy." That was what I was questioning. Much better if you could have answered my specific question about what happens to its presumedly associated information when matter is disintegrated in particle collider experiments! I am most interested in a discussion about that!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut what about the information when matter is converted to energy and vice versa? Is there some physical storage of information pertaining to energy as well? This is about physics, correct? In any event, how is this information about energy and matter physically stored or represented. If were not discussing physical representations of information then we're discussing some abstract conception and the the second law of thermodynamics does not apply, does it?
I think you'd agree that no discrete object of mass can be accelerated to anywhere near the speed of light, correct? As I recall, there is some observational evidence that stars being 'ingested' by black holes appear to have lost their spherical shape and instead become disintegrated into indiscrete plasma particles. I would expect that Mary would be heated by friction and, if for no other reason, disintegrated due to high speed collisions with other matter being ingested by a black hole.
Experimental particle physicists probably have some additional information on the subject, but perhaps, if necessary, Mary would volunteer to take a ride in the LHC tunnel at full power to establish more definitively what might physically happen to her as she is accelerated towards the event horizon of a black hole...
While it might be theoretically correct that "right up to the instant before she crosses the event horizon, Alice and Bob would totally agree on the space-time lengths of all the measuring sticks around the two of them," I don't think Mary would be capable of processing any information anywhere near the event horizon, since there seems to be a great deal of very high energy physical processes occurring in the accretion disks of active black holes...
Of course, in all these 'thought experiments' Bob & Mary seem to usually be represented as stick figures. Perhaps there's good reason for that...
I like your idea about putting Alice in an accelerator, but I would put Bob in too, then let-r-rip.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, the Standard Model has a prediction for what would happen:
(62%) (+ redgoo)/(- redgoo), (18%) B-Alice/-ABobby,+ABobby, (9%)....well you get the idea.
I think this "information" thing is a little goofy too, but when a physicist is talking about "information", they mean something very specific,(and physical) and it is very much related to entropy and the second law. That's why they get all in a tizzy when they think the universe is loosing some. If your interested, there are two books that I know of that deal with this very subject: "From Eternity to Here" by Sean Carrol, and "Programming the Universe" by Seth Lloyd. I'm sure there are many others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think general relativity says that Alice does cross the event horizon in finite time (from her point of view), but Bob can never observe her doing so as she is increasingly red shifted. Granted, there may still be a "firewall" since Alice will increasingly see the outside universe as increasingly blue shifted as she approaches the event horizon. Unless the universe dims more rapidly in its distant future than the blue shift is brightening, she might be destroyed by blue shifted background radiation in that last instant before crossing the event horizon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGRAVITY IN THE MIND OF GOD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-- James Ph. Kotsybar
“Amusing,”
thinks God,
”that My weakest force
ironically becomes the strongest.
The meek shall inherit, over due course --
the last become first, the shortest, longest.
“So gravity, most obvious, shall be
the greatest ever unsolved mystery
which, though its effects everyone can see,
can’t be described satisfactorily –
a force that’s both uniform and mundane,
predictable yet able to allude
a simple explanation that sounds sane
of its ever attractive attitude.
“And action at a distance? Let men try
to come to terms with what they most deny.”
BLACK HOLE
-- James Ph. Kotsybar
Containing nothing that’s ambivalent,
more than dark, which would only be dreary,
death’s non-spiritual equivalent
crushes our intellect to theory.
Passage through is most certainly one way,
and thus it incites our speculation.
What would occur, if we wandered astray
into this singular aberration?
It’s relative to where you’ve placed your clocks.
From outside we’d seem to fall forever.
Beyond that, it’s puzzling paradox.
We only know that we’d leave it never.
A downward orbit is how it begins,
and nothing’s jolly when gravity wins.
SINGULARITY
-- James Ph. Kotsybar
A black hole’s like a giant ball of string.
It twines its bulk around its central core
where space-time’s structure loses all meaning –
first stretched then flattened, it’s matter no more.
Spaghettified and accelerated,
all spools onto its hidden central mass,
and races near light speed, unabated,
until it seems (from outside) time won’t pass.
In this near infinite amount of time,
mass plummets through the sphere Schwarzschild defined
and, downward, speeds through this turbulent clime,
confounding physics, boggling the mind.
Past this horizon, time and space reverse
and form a point outside our Universe.
GRAVITY IN THE MIND OF GOD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-- James Ph. Kotsybar
“Amusing,”
thinks God,
”that My weakest force
ironically becomes the strongest.
The meek shall inherit, over due course --
the last become first, the shortest, longest.
“So gravity, most obvious, shall be
the greatest ever unsolved mystery
which, though its effects everyone can see,
can’t be described satisfactorily –
a force that’s both uniform and mundane,
predictable yet able to allude
a simple explanation that sounds sane
of its ever attractive attitude.
“And action at a distance? Let men try
to come to terms with what they most deny.”
BLACK HOLE
-- James Ph. Kotsybar
Containing nothing that’s ambivalent,
more than dark, which would only be dreary,
death’s non-spiritual equivalent
crushes our intellect to theory.
Passage through is most certainly one way,
and thus it incites our speculation.
What would occur, if we wandered astray
into this singular aberration?
It’s relative to where you’ve placed your clocks.
From outside we’d seem to fall forever.
Beyond that, it’s puzzling paradox.
We only know that we’d leave it never.
A downward orbit is how it begins,
and nothing’s jolly when gravity wins.
SINGULARITY
-- James Ph. Kotsybar
A black hole’s like a giant ball of string.
It twines its bulk around its central core
where space-time’s structure loses all meaning –
first stretched then flattened, it’s matter no more.
Spaghettified and accelerated,
all spools onto its hidden central mass,
and races near light speed, unabated,
until it seems (from outside) time won’t pass.
In this near infinite amount of time,
mass plummets through the sphere Schwarzschild defined
and, downward, speeds through this turbulent clime,
confounding physics, boggling the mind.
Past this horizon, time and space reverse
and form a point outside our Universe.
Theoretical physics is in quite a state today. The unfolding "nigthmare scenario" (nothing beyond the heuristic standard model with its well-known shortcomings) at the LHC and the impending demise of "WIMP" theory, string theory, supersymmetry and assorted wingnuts like axions and extra-dimensions, beg the question: What has gone very wrong in theoretical physics!?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing the Perimeter Institute - 100s of high-powered thinkers, an ocean of coffee, torrents of words, but, alas, no major discoveries worth writing home about - as a microcosm for the whole field of theoretical physics, consider the following only slightly humorous take on the situation.
100 Ferraris, Aston Martins, Shelby Cobras, Harley Davidsons, etc. with their engines racing at full speed but going nowhere because they are all up on blocks.
The blocks are the old failing paradigms of cosmology and particle physics, and no one is going anywhere until a new unified paradigm is identified and people get their intellectual wheels back on the solid ground of nature.
If that new unified paradigm sounds absurd and impossible, consider that Einstein said quite seriously : "If at first an idea does not sound absurd, then there is no hope for it."
Time to consider radically different comprehensive paradigms, so long as they are derived from empirical evidence, can make definitive predictions and can PASS definitive predictions.
Theories that cannot make and pass definitive predictions should be studiously ignored until they can at least make definitive predictions by which they can be tested, because that is the definition of science.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
"there is no difference between free fall and inertial motion"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is where the issue is. Its at most an assumption.
Yes - nothing personal. As an information systems analyst, I have something very specific and physical in mind when I question physicists discussions of cosmic 'information'. As I understand, one of the leading ideas is that, for matter ingested into a black hole, the information required to reconstruct it is necessarily somehow magically maintained at the event horizon - to satisfy physicists' sensibilities. Perhaps the accretion disk is a disk drive with magnetic field domains representing binary data values? In my professional opinion, this is silly nonsense! "Programming the universe?" Sorry, I don't have the energy for such tripe. It must have something to do with dark matter...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMO matter is condensed from energy, further condensed by fusion and disintegrated by collision or decay by physical processes that transform the configuration of material energy based on prevailing conditions without any requirement for external instructions or data.
As I understand, this conception that physical phenomena are produced solely by natural processes is fundamental to the scientific study of physics - there are no programmable cosmological mechanisms awaiting digital manufacturing instructions to produce or reproduce physical elements...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we need are scientific firewalls at professional and popular publications that incinerate untestable mental dithering, and only allow definitively testable science to pass into the public domain.
Speculate to your hearts content, but until you make the transition from untestable pseudo-science to testable science, keep it where the light never shines. :)
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Fractal Cosmology
Kaleberg seems to reduce this phenomenon of approaching and crossing the event horizon of a black hole to gravitational redshift. This is relevant only to sending EM signals. From my understanding, the firewall has nothing to do with EM signals -- "Alice and Bob represent an entangled particle pair." Alice and Bob are not sending EM signals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith respect to the event horizon or a firewall, I do not want to know about Alice and Bob as if they are humans in a spaceship. I want to know about Alice and Bob as if they are either fermions or bosons.
I'm sure you're too sophisticated to address your demeaning personal comments directly to me, but as they are then generally directed to apparently all commentators, I'll take personal exception to them on that basis. You're most often either moaning about how the scientific community doesn't give you your just due or giving demeaning advice to 'unscientific' commentators. Full disclosure would require that you reveal your vaunted position - as the self-appointed Fractal Geologist-Cosmologist, I guess... Don't slip on the way out of your rented academic address...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, formally proposed theories are required to make testable predictions - not casual suggestions in a reader commentary.
Why is your smiley face "where the light never shines"? Do you think that makes your caustic personal remarks friendly, or non-threatening? Rather wimpish in my view!
You said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this".......black hole, the information required to reconstruct it is necessarily somehow magically maintained at the event horizon - to satisfy physicists' sensibilities."
Yup, from the reading I've done, that's their thinking, and I share your skepticism. (I bet Oldershaw does too)
However, I don't think anyone's contemplating information storage or processing as anything "external" to natures machinations, but rather something intrinsic (fundamental) to nature itself. And, to conceptualize natures' processes as "information processing" and the present as the "output" is certainly one framework to hang our understanding upon but, ultimately, an idea must be assessed (and I think this is Oldershaws' point) in regards to its' utility....its' usefulness. In other words; where does it get us and how can we test it?
The book, "Programing the Universe", never had anything to do with programing the universe.
(or dark matter, if I remember right....)
I can appreciate that view, but what information intrinsically related to specific configurations of material energy could persist in nature once that matter had been converted to energy, allowing for its reconstruction? If this information on material configuration is not separate from material that is in effect transient, how can it persist?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, while physicists arrived at that line of reasoning considering the large scale relativistic properties of material ingested by black holes, I think the more difficult application lies in the corollary that the intrinsic information regarding the configuration of matter must also somehow persist for particles disintegrated by collider experiments - otherwise, if the second law of thermodynamics does actually apply to cosmic/quantum 'information' - it would be violated. Unlike the mysterious environment around and within black holes, once the magnetic fields are shut down the environment within the LHC is governed by very familiar conditions. How is the magical information retained?
Sorry I got carried away with the "Programming the Universe" marketing hyperbole, and dark matter for that matter. But, how is persistent cosmic/quantum information purported to be physically stored? Without addressing this question, the abstract concept of associative information does not even belong in a discussion of physics, IMO...
Let's see:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Infinitely dense - check
2. Generates little light - check
Could jtdwyer be a black hole?
just a guess , but , if the rational of the need for the preservation of knowledge is accepted , then the postulation presents itself ; for the formation of the universe , the knowledge of the structure of the universe had to already be in existance . there fore there is no other need for the preservation of knowledge .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat is the theoretical point where the force of gravity causes light to stop ? would an atomic clock run slower under water ? time is not carried around in photons but is effected by some of the same conditions .if time stood still at the event horizon then a black hole can not grow , give off jets of energy , both are equated with time intervals . this wall of flame was started by the release of contraction energy which set up a feeder vortex which as the remnant slowly evolved into the singulary , formed the acretion disc . if you check you might see the jet spinning in the opposite direction of the disc . as the remnant contracted probably half was in a molten/liquid state so the equator would bulg and the pools of light energy slowly acreted to north or south poles , as the gravity was higher at thos points and they would then feed into the energy jets which over time became a dynamic and self sustaining system which removed the slowly dwindling contection energy ( as the core solidified there was less , but as the captured matter was degaded to its componant parts the energy given up was caught in the loop and the jets got bigger . the jet would be a fiece catylist for the sublimation of all matter , so yes a firewall would be there .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe know that black holes spin. Do they have an internal structure? I wonder if it is possible to monitor the 1000 s of stars that rotate in close proximity to Sag 'A to check for gravity variations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, "Sagittarius A* (pronounced "Sagittarius A-star", standard abbreviation Sgr A*) is a bright and very compact astronomical radio source at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
A great deal of information about the black hole has been derived from observations, including that the compact radio source is not actually the black hole itself, and:
"... so suggests that the Sagittarius A* radio emissions are not centered on the hole but arise from a bright spot in the region around the black hole, close to the event horizon, possibly in the accretion disc or a relativistic jet of material ejected from the disc."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Central_black_hole
That Wikipedia entry also includes a chart of the inferred orbits of 6 stars around the candidate supermassive black hole.
Whether black holes have any internal structure or not, I think such compact massive objects would not deviate from spherical symmetry and would present the effective mass distribution of a point-mass if not a singularity. As a result, I wouldn't expect that observed orbital characteristics could reveal anything about internal structure, other than its spherical symmetry....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe prolific jt says: "...I think such compact massive objects would not deviate from spherical symmetry..."
Oops, wrong again.
Rotating black holes (Kerr black holes), which are considered realistic models for actual black holes found in nature, deviate from spherical symmetry.
Wikipedia might be a good place to start for those who want something more than can be found in pop sci books.
RLO
Fractal Cosmology
Information is not lost but ever preserved, when matter falls into a black hole, because black hole is Nature's equivalence of DNA, or the black box of All in all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe age-old problem of Paradox, is itself the very solution to the puzzle of oneness of the micro-states and macro-state (Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity)self-contradiction of Cosmos- the gluon of Relativity states as the resultant Absolute state of Space.
Nature's absolute logic is superposition (paradox): equator of self-contradiction (eternal oneness of pairness), the self-creator and Singularity of All in all (Spacetime-Continuum). -Aiya-Oba (Philosopher).
I'm sure you can explain to "iyyunig" how the Kerr-metric describes an external surface beyond the event horizon that, as the Wikipedia entry I referenced states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There are four known, exact, black hole solutions to Einstein's equations, which describe gravity in General Relativity. Two of these (the Kerr and Kerr-Newman black holes) rotate. It is generally believed that every black hole decays rapidly to a stable black hole..."
While the elliptical exterior 'surface' of a rotating black hole affects how particles and magnetic fields interact with it prior to ingestion, as I understand the remote gravitational effects produced by the event horizon and of course hypothesized mass singularity retain their spherical symmetry at all times, even in transient Kerr and Kerr-Newman black holes. As a result, I think any black hole rotation would not affect the motions of orbiting stars, as the question suggested, since the distribution of black hole mass remains spherically symmetrical at all times, as I said.
I don't think your simple declarative statement proves my expressed opinion to be in error, thanks. At any rate I think my response was appropriate for the question, and references were provided for additional information.
BTW, I won't be concerning myself with such silly assaults in the future - don't waste your time trying to prove my stated opinions wrong. At least, if you attempt to do so, you might as well produce a substantive argument rather than just an apparently erroneously incomplete opposing opinion.
B-hole: "the distribution of black hole mass remains spherically symmetrical at all times, as I said."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think axially symmetric might be a safer bet.
Do you know that the Kerr and Kerr-Newman singularities are ring singularities? This is a highly aspherical structure at the heart of the BH.
But feel free to believe religiously in whatever you choose.
Then again,
http://www.academia.edu/177844/Hadrons_As_Kerr-Newman_Black_Holes
might be of interest to you, if you like new ideas.
Robert L. Oldershaw
No, thanks, this discussion is about stars orbiting the supermassive black hole near the center of the Milky Way - not any similarity that Hadrons might have to black holes in the context of your fractal theory of everything self-similar...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA wise choice.
You are better off sticking with topics on which you at least have a superficial knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRumor from ATLAS collaboration is that there is another twin-peak mystery-bump at 105 GeV (5-sigma), and yet another excess at 60 GeV.
Christmas surprise?
Quick! Call the epicycle factory and tell them to get busy on a new batch of ad hoc fixes to save the Substandard Paradigm, just in case.
Love that postmodern pseudo-science that could not make a definitive prediction if its life depended on it, far less pass one.
If one was to consider the natural order of the universe to be an extension of that which we see on earth, than it would stand to reason that the universe constantly recycles energy and matter. Images shot by NASA of particle jets erupting from a supermassive black hole in Centaurus A, show lobes of matter erupting from the black hole at its center. It is estimated that these particles of matter move at approximately 1/3 the speed of light, but the process is not completely understood. If this process is the recycling of matter and energy, than the infromation passing through a black hole would be lost. However, it would be interesting to learn how it is "recycled" and try to measure the ratio between the incoming, and outgoing matter, and how it is altered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am very satisfied with the "Firewall" idea. Black holes are the edges of an inflated, hyperspace universe. Once-condensed matter disintegrates near the event horizon, and is either absorbed by the hole or accelerated along the poles. Entropy and information is completely lost as matter phase changes back to pure energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEffective mass of Black Hole concentrated at a single point, if not singularity. Still BHs maintaining a spherical geometry without any internal structuer?. I think you also believe in the conception that all the matter entering event horizon gets converted to energy directed at some single point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there is no matter in the BH ( beyond event horizon) and all the effective mass concentrated at a single point, What is the relevance of spherical geometry and mass of the BH? In the absence of any matter or energy between single point ( or singularity) and event horizon, to what spherical geometry shall pertain to?
Once again, I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER said there was no energy within the event horizon of a black hole. Very briefly, in the scenario I repeatedly propose, ingested matter is disintegrated similarly to a particle collider; mass-energy is retained within the event horizon, directed towards a singular focal point represented in theory as a singularity. Residual material energy is ejected via polar jets. I won't respond to your tiresome, contentious challenges based on misrepresentations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi have heard many times about how nothing travels faster than the speed of light, and nothing excapes a black hole because of that. and i have also heard that gravity around a black hole comes from inside the black hole; from the singularity. and yet, nothing excapes a black hole? maybe gravity is a ftl phenomenon? otherwise how does it get out?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi am now wondering if something different is actually happening. maybe the quantum foam is compressed in a gravitationally intense environment, and time undergoes a phase change in order to pass through the smaller spaces?
That's a very good question - the critical issue is whether some particle or energy within the black hole event horizon directly produces the external effects of gravitation. Classical mechanics presumes some attractive force generated by objects of mass. The quantum field theory model provides that some material force mediated by the exchange of particles (hypothesized 'gravitons') is transferred between gravitationally interacting objects, similarly to photons that mediate the transfer of the electromagnetic force. Both these mechanisms seem to violate the restriction that gravitationally interacting particles cannot propagate from within the BH event horizon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly if gravitons somehow could mediate the transfer of a gravitational force of matter while somehow being exempted from gravitational interactions could the quantum field theory model apply. I have no explanation for how this could be possible.
Another alternative is that gravitational effects are directly produced by some energy inherent to the vacuum of space, forming a static field that is produced through some interaction with the potential energy of mass prior to mass's accretion, or perhaps as a result of it. In this way a static field of vacuum energy would be produced by the accretion of matter. The geometric properties of spacetime described in general relativity using an abstract system of spacetime dimensional coordinates would actually represent gradient fields of vacuum energy density that produce the effects of gravity.
These are merely my own conceptual thoughts on the subject of how gravitational force effects apparently escape from within the event horizon... Good question!
and yet, if one were to suppose that time either stopped or underwent some fundamental change, then an alternate postulate might emerge. what if gravity were not a force, but a dimension, moderated by the size and/or phase of the quantum foam through which our 4d spacetime experiences it. an inverse relationship between size/phase of quantum foam and field strength of gravity would seem at least plausible. comments?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismoreover, event horizons would then seem to be that place beyond which the dimension of gravity exists. if gravity were a dimension instead of a field, pervading all space and time, then there should be no speed of light effects on gravity over large distances, simply because all matter is connected by a dimension that exists in the same (location) for all mass/energy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisgetting back to bob and alice ; as alice falls into the bh influence she gets spagettified until she is molecules and atoms .at the point where the molecules are pulled apart , it is the beginning of the light dimple .as the atoms are finally shredded she is at the eh. the light and energy which is produced from the destruction of molecular bonds start to rise in a tangent way - similar to right angles , but the closer to the eh. the more the energy forms an arc -point a to point b , point b being the apex of an arc if left anattended would go to someone elses point a , being equidistant from the center of the singulary . the breaking of the molecular bonds are less difficult so the dimple starts befor the eh. and as there is no more energy after the stripping of all energy from the subatomic particles the ev. hearlds the end of light after , the bh. does not stop light from excapeing but the light and energy all point to the apex of the dimple and due to the convergence the waves go away from the bh . in the form of the visible energy jet . all that is solid from matters' destruction fall to the surface of the bh.( which i think are the higgs particles ) there by adding to the gravitational effect . an aside , i can not help but think there is still energy potention in the core of the bh. due to the rapidity of the collapse which might be measurable .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI choose not to accept the unphysical proposition that dimensions directly impart physical effects on matter. IMO, dimensions are merely an abstraction of some aspect of physical elements: distance between objects, the spherical symmetry of objects, planar disc proportions, etc. That dimensional geometry can describe the effects of gravitation indicates some unidentified physical aspect of spacetime that is altered by gravitation - it is that physical aspect of spacetime that directly alters the motions of objects...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do agree in principle with your last statement, that the potential mass-energy extracted from collapsed matter is retained within the BH event horizon. IMO residual dimensional matter is expelled via relativistic polar jets even in the initial collapse of a large stellar mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe lesser collapse of stars producing neutron stars transform their matter into free electrons and nucleons; the protons fuse with electrons to convert all nucleons into neutral, dense neutrons. The collapse of more massive stars go even further in transforming their material energy...
In this view, only essential gravitational energy is retained within the BH event horizon expressed as extremely contracted dimensional spacetime (vacuum energy), directed towards a common focal point or virtual singularity.
You are free to respond or not as per your sweet will. But you are highly misplaced in interpreting my comments/ queries/ responses as contentious challenges. Branding other commentators in a public forum as contentious smacks of arrogance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are scientific conception in some scientific community that gravitation dawns in our 3D space( or 4d Space-time) from dimensions higher and other than usual 3 D of physical space. Nevertheless of higher dimensions, they have treated gravitation as some Force which originates from higher dimensions and manifest in 3D dimensions of physical space. At singularity or within event horizon where gravitational forces are extremely high, a phase change takes place in Time implying Time may change its arrow, physical space-time breaks down ( or melts), entry to higher dimensions commences from where gravitation has properties different than as within physical 3d Space. In this respect, gravitation which is perceived in our physical 4 D space-time is an extension of gravitation originating from some higher dimension. This could also be the mystery behind so called dark matter. However, since astronomers have so far not detected conclusively any higher dimensions, therefore, neither they have been able to constrain the origin of gravitation nor of dark matter. In higher dimensions, e.m signals don't transport, therefore, scientists have not been able to lay their hand on the origin of gravitation or nature of dark matter. But effects of gravitation and dark matter operating from higher dimensions have been casting their effects within 4 d dimensions of physical universe and confusing scientists about origin of gravitation and nature of dark matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbove are not my personal conception only though there may be some personal speculation in above conception. Eric Verlinde, a string theorist of Amestrdom University has done studies in the development of above conception. In 2012, SA had also published an article by George Musser on the studies of Verlinde
So if the singularity is at the event horizon instead of at a point in the center, you can't survive an entry into the black hole. But if you had evolved within the black hole, you would see the event horizon in all directions and conclude that your universe had begun with a big bang.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem too arrogant to ask questions about my statements - proceeding to misrepresent them and challenging me to defend your misrepresentations. This is not an isolated occurrence - others too have commented to you about your 'cross-examinations'. You've also made comments directed to me that you thoroughly comprehend my proposals, then proceed to misrepresent them. I don't have the energy to correct and counter your extensive questioning of misrepresented proposals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... if you had evolved within the black hole, you would see the event horizon in all directions and conclude that your universe had begun with a big bang."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho or what do you think could possibly have "evolved within the black hole?" IMO, an absurdly impossible observer within a black hole would not see the universe receding all in all directions, inferring a big bang, but rather see the (apparent) universe collapsing inward from all directions, inferring an impending big crunch.
You are still assuming a singularity at the center.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, but you didn't specify what the conditions are within the event horizon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand, a singularity cannot be represented as a shell - the event horizon is is the radial distance from the collective center of gravitational focus at which escape at the speed of light is not possible. I can't do the math, but I'd suspect that in all cases the magnitude of gravitational effects would increase with proximity to the common focal point.
I suppose an imaginary condition could be conjectured in which gravitational effects terminated at a gravitational 'surface' at the periphery of an event horizon. In such a case, Newton's shell theorem might apply as in a hollow sphere:
"If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e. a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
Conversely, in such conditions I suspect that no light could enter the shell from the exterior, but I think that, since this is not really an attempt to model expected black hole conditions that anything might go...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo we start off with a dust-up (fog-in?) among the heroic intelligensia of the current crop of celebrity theoretical physicists.
This devolves into a dust-up among the unenlightened and walking wounded.
None of them understands the structural and dynamic principles upon which nature is based.
Same as it ever was.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Fractal Cosmology
from your post:I choose not to accept the unphysical proposition that dimensions directly impart physical effects on matter. IMO, dimensions are merely an abstraction of some aspect of physical elements: distance between objects, the spherical symmetry of objects, planar disc proportions, etc. That dimensional geometry can describe the effects of gravitation indicates some unidentified physical aspect of spacetime that is altered by gravitation - it is that physical aspect of spacetime that directly alters the motions of objects...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismy answer:
and so your opinion is that the 4-DIMENSIONAL SPACETIME we exist within imparts no physical effects upon matter?
seems irrational to me. can you explain?
sorry, forgot to define the post i was replying to:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this58. jtdwyer
my premise is that graviyy is the actual FIRST dimension in a 5D spacetime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismaybe you, from the vaunted heights of heroic cognition, have simply forgot a simple concept? that, in fact, without the "unenlightened and walking wounded" are actually the unsung heroes who work everyday for our families, and pay our taxes, so you "heroes" can cognate to your heart's content without ever breaking a sweat? just a thought from a ten-dollar-an-hour worker.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe quality of one's scientific thinking does not depend on how much one makes per hour, or what one does for a day-job.
It depends on how much sustained effort is put in over the years and decades.
If one does not build up a foundation of empirical and theoretical knowledge to work from, then one is lost in the cosmos without a compass for guidance.
Empirical knowledge is the most important and reliable knowledge.
Lastly, one can do good science and also meet one's social responsibilities if one uses his time wisely.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Fractal Cosmology
perhaps there is an area at the equator of the singlary that if free of encumberance due to the two acretion discs terminous outside of each others' effects paramaters , which would allow egrss of some residual energies .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi meant no disrespect to your accomplishments, only that you SEEMED to have glossed over the connection between the workers, and the intellectuals. also, while offering no apology for my opinion, might i offer my apology for my grammer and syntax?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry to wrap your mind around this.Now If time is zero at the EH then all quantum activity is frozen including everything inside right down to the singularity.Although a BH can spin there is absolutely nothing going on inside a BH.When BH's collide only the EH's touch.The singularity stays frozen at the center of each.Now if you have thousand of BH's.You would have some sort of foam not just on big BH.And because some or many of the BH's are spinning it would be a rolling foam with the BH's orbiting each others in close quarters with the non spinning BH's rolling around with the rest.This undulating would finally settle down with heavy ones ending at the bottom and the lighter ones forming layers to the outside with everthing obiting each other.Now imagine a accretion disk surrounding this blob of BH's.Now my question is what is going in the gaps between the BH's?Now imagine how twisted up space-time must be inside the gaps of this blob?Can the you imagine the mathematics used to describe all these motions?A little feedback on this would be helpful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you consider gravitation as some "dimension" in a realm beyond our 4D dimensional physical universe? Please confirm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also consider gravitation emanating from a realm beyond 4D dimensional universe but not merely dimension but some force.
Though in relativity space and time have been stated as dimensions but physicality of space has dogged physicists since long and issue remains unresolved up to day. That is the reason distortion of space-time (curvature) and expansion of space don't make any sense to an inquisitive mind on physical paradigm.
I can't envision any dimension unless it is supported by some physicality -- some tangible stuff. Physicality -- tangible stuff not in the normal sense we interpret matter or even energy as physical but any existential entity which exist by virtue of its existence or due to some other existence in cause-effect sequential relation. This is another matter that we may be unaware of the tangible existences or physicality or "stuff" of composition of some entities and brand those entities as non-physical
".Now If time is zero at the EH then all quantum activity is frozen including everything inside right down to the singularity"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConcepts of Time dilation Or Time freeze is observation centric. Time will be freeze and become zero for a remote observer away from event horizon and quantum activity shall freeze for that observer only. For an observer near the event horizon, there shall be no time freeze and accordingly no freeze in quantum activity. This is the implicit meaning in the concept of " No drama" as given in this article
When we don't know the "something" of some entity, which do not fall within the knowledge instrumentality of Physicists, we brand those entities as non-physical and sometimes assign as merely dimensions and create a conception as if those entities don't exist
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZ (at Science online): "Are you saying Arkani-Hamed is incapable of providing objective analysis?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, that is exactly what I am saying. The current crop of "leading physicists" and their followers are totally invested in the old failing paradigms of particle physics and cosmology. As Kuhn described in his well-known book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the status, funding and worldview of the old paradigm's adherents is inextricably linked to that paradigm. They will defend it to the death because they view it as the only possible worldview.
However, there are new and quite different paradigms waiting for a chance to be judged objectively. Some can make and PASS definitive predictions that the old paradigm cannot. For example:
http://www.academia.edu/2042222/Predictions_of_Discrete_Scale_Relativity
The recent "Nightmare Scenario" unfolding at the LHC and the many unpredicted astrophysical phenomena discovered in recent decades (trillions of unbound planetary-mass nomad objects!; very unexpected exoplanet system characteristics!) show quite clearly that a new unified paradigm is badly needed.
However, it will not be Arkani-Hamed, or any of the celebrity physicists, who lead the path to the new paradigm. They will do everything in their power (considerable) to obstruct its eventual coming.
The path to a new paradigm will be forged by a NEW generation of physics students who are not slaves to the old paradigms of particle physics and cosmology.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Fractal Cosmology
Physics is very interesting, but you need some teaching from experts in order not to get lost or sunk. Regarding the Hawking Radiation: "The Virtual Particle Pairs popping out of the Quantum Vacuum near a Black Hole" are in the good or in the bad side of the Event Horizon? If they're inside, no element of the pair would be able to escape the Hole, and thus no way for the Hole to fade. If they're outside the Event Horizon, the action of Hole's Gravity or other power should make no qualitative difference to the one of any heavy body, just quantitative, and thus, the generation of these particle pairs should be observed in many places. There is Sci-Fi literature regarding Black Holes, a tale is about somebody sending an Ape under "Telepathic contact" to the other side of the Event Horizon, the observer becoming mad. The Bible speaks about "The Abyss" neither those in the good side nor the ones in the evildoers' side would be able to cross, and also about the "Eternal Fire" prepared since the beginning of Creation for Satan and its angels, this Fire matches with the concept of "Ball of Fire" (Listen to the Jerry Lee Lewis song!) surrounding a Black Hole exposed in this article, but also with more common things such as a White Darf or Neutron Star not too big. Salut +
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI meant a White Dwarf, sorry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this61.76.77.78 vinodkumarsehgal:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Perfect Classical Symmetry of the Dynamics of Celestial Bodies Orbits even within the Solar System also is able to elegantly retrodict more than 65 fundamental parameters from the subatomic to the galactic scales.”
1)Including the planets,moon”s etc. within our Solar System,with over 65 parameters.
2) Included is a Spherical Axis, and a Reverse Cylindrical Axis ,OVERLAPPING AT CERTAIN PERIOD’S OF A FIXED TIME,AND AT A FIXED LOCATION, WHERE THE PAIR's OF TRIADS ARE IN GEOMETRICAL FORMATION, can be Emperically Verified,within our SOLAR SYSTEM- even from the ground level on earth inducing Spin, Deformation of Celestial Bodies as the effects of 8-Body Gravitational System in Sets.
Extended version of Einstien's Gravitational Field Equations , displays physical clarity on the entity of matter, & discrete flipped Spin,seperating
1)Inertia Gravity
2) Mass Gravity as distinct Two split Inverse Ratio's in the appropiate " TORQUE " proportions.
3) Whenever the Angular Momentum of Planetary Celestial Bodies Orbitals sweep through ” EQUEAL ANGLES AT ONE FIXED TIME,in a fixed place ,IN A PERFECT SYMMETRY FORMATION.
4) We are in “DYNAMICAL CLASSICAL PHASE TRANSITION CONVERGENCE” WHICH CAN BE characterized by the phase diagram, as the critical behavior at the phase transition approaches as a “FUNCTION OF TIME FREEZE IN THE FIFTH DIMENSION”. We find a novel fluctuation induced dynamical CONVERGENCE stability, which occurs at long wavelength-(GRAVITON’S)
“STAGING CASCADE OF DISTANT PARRALLLELISM within a slice of DYNAMICAL Phase space.” .
What if.... a black hole was really a "star" made of dark matter. The radiation emitted was from the annihilation of matter that drifts into it.... (1/2 :-) )
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the first postulate there would be no free fall upon penetration of the event horizon if a black hole has a quantized structure that extends to the perimeter of the event horizon. Even if one were to survive long enough to reach the event horizon, one’s body would not survive the penetration of it. It is most likely that the constituents of the hapless victim of such an experience would break down into some more basic form of matter, as the familiar fundamental forces (other than gravity) cease to operate upon penetration of the event horizon. If black holes possess a structure consistent with a quantization of space-time into discrete units (because singularities can not exist,) then matter as we know it (and the aforementioned fundamental forces must cease to operate) must decay into a more basic form upon penetration of the event horizon. During this ‘decay’ process the material that does not enter the black hole is released in the relativistic jets generated by black holes. The second postulate can not be true if as I contend the fundamental forces other than gravity (the electromagnetic, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force) cease to operate. It is probable that a black hole only contains the most basic information that is necessary to influence the structure and development of the universe during the next cyclic expansion phase. christina knight antigravitationalforce.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems to me that a black hole would have a point where light can neither escape or return and ends up in a orbit that quickly attains a laser like effect that is amplified as new debris falls in. Essentially you would look forward and see multiple images of the back of your head and if you turned suddenly you would see your face slowly melting into the back of your head again or worse yet a combination of both that are unable to escape.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe photon has no mass, but is still not allowed because of the geometry to escape, but it is energetic enough to make it to the ring of ouch, that burns.
what i meant was and is that it seems to me that gravity is the FIRST dimension in an unknown number of dimensions. the first five: gravity,time, and 3 spatial dimensions would comprise our physical reality. all interconnected by and through the first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe important thing to realise is that the apparent physicality is probably an analogy to the spiritual situation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThusly, it might help to abandon mathematical descriptions and use instead conceptual descriptions. Thus the dichotomies are not so final.
"...One thing that bothers me about the whole "firewalls" tempest-in-a-teacup is that we are once led straight into the realm of untestable pseudo-science..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe above comment is locally true, but 'untestable' does not mean 'incorrect'.
The problem is believing that everything must be locally explicable. If the locality is 'dependent-arising'; i.e. impermanent, why would some things not be inexplical until later?
*inexplicable* :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe three postulates of which one must go all assume that black holes exist. What if this assumption can be proven to be false and instead just a gravitational illusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishammerbait - Sorry for the delay in my response...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBriefly, I'm suggesting that GR very precisely describes the effects of gravitation the the dimensional geometry of spacetime - not as a direct, physical causal factor but as an abstract measure of the result. I suggest that it is some physical aspect of the vacuum represented as spacetime geometry that actually causes the dimensional measure of gravitational effects - for example that a compression of spacetime energy density could be represented as the compression of dimensional spacetime coordinates...
The standard model of the Big Bang as described by Weinberg in "the first 3 minutes" tell how an epoch of radiationdominated expansion was followed by the slower expansion of matterdominated equation of state.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding gravitational collapse the standard wisdom says we should only concern ourselves regarding a MATTERDOMINATED equation of state, the Schwartschild solution later elaborated by Oppenheimer & Snyder who took "pressureless dust" as the material source ( very realistic in the case whouldnt you think )
But there are other solutions to Einsteins equations than the Schwartschild one. Ponder a RADIATIONDOMINATED equation of state for a collapsing star (Vaidya metric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaidya_metric)
From this one can derive the MECO model (Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object) of collapsed objects.
There are articles in arxiv.org on the subject so search there if you are interested ti know more.
In a shortish naive way one could perhaps say that we can ignore full GR and just describe the star as plasma ball described by simpler special relativity.
In regard to this article, yes close up to a very hot plasma it would kind of look like a fireball i guess.
That this object lacks both event horizon and singularity also makes moot of the quantum information paradox. The radiation is plain old thermal black body (but with extreme redshift)
For a stellar mass MECO the radiation wold be arond 100 000 K and for a supermassive 100 million solarmass black hole there would be microwave radiation at around 100 K.
Quantum physics, the greatest and most genial hoax ever in science - done on purpose, that is why it is so genial -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisis becoming like inquisition for science nowadays. A religion which forbids progress, because progress in this theory is impossible.
Relativity theory brought us nuclear plants and bombs, radiotherapy etc etc. Quantum physics brought us
not one but two higgs bossóns, their Temple CERN and billions and billions of thrown away money.
¡Even the Pope does not fear it!
Now it brings us back to science without backbone, string theories, indefinite dimensions, where there seems to be only one, entanglement, which means that distance is zero, etc. etc. Science without logic.
The latest: Paradoxes, or... we lost the way.
It is time that another honest genius like Einstein stands up and explains the obvious. The Photon.
Maybe next year more.
Have a great 2013
from a layman's perspective, a hypothetical question:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif one were to envision a long baloon of small circumference with a valve in the middle, inflated about halfway, then envision the consequences of comression of one end, what would the result be? as one end gets smaller, the other would grow larger, obviously.
what then, about the expansion of the universe, and what in your opinion might be getting compressed in return. if all of our physical dimensions include gravity as the first dimension, time the second, 3space comprising the rest, and 3space is being inflated, where then the renormalizaton?
Thanks mighty Justyntoo for your insight
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny information lost in black hole, is instantaneouly available in its corresponding singularity of pairness (absolute-Superposition state of Space), regardless of location and time.
Nature's absolute logic is Maxwell's demon, Dirac's monopole and Schrodinger's cat.-Aiya-Oba, Philosopher and discoverer of Nature's absolute logic.
The gravity is easy to comprehend. See Explanation of Mass, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Their Places in Creation in the book Attraction and Repulsion in the Universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://outskirtspress.com/attraction_repulsion
Nice, interesting article. Thanks. I've been working on a model for matter and spacetime since 1995, treating "particles" as acoustic standing waves a bit like late 1800's aether models, Kelvin, Bjerknes, etc. In those models, you can pick 2 or 4 phase angles and try to create a system that's coherent, I use 4 phase angles. Arbitrarily, 0 phase is positive charge, the rest are then fixed as 180 is negative, 90 and 270 are "neutral" charges. You can do a lot with particle physics, but this article is about black hole event horizons so I'll focus on that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis model differs from 1800's models in that to treat "particles" as instead, "acoustic resonances", you must also treat "spacetime" as a structure of acoustic "standing waves". This further leads to the realization that "Mass" must be treated as "quantity of medium"....call it aether, quintescence, or whatever you want, (exothermic) fusion reactions must emit it and endothermic reactions must compress, condense, and thus absorb it. Black holes, then, take on a new structure...........a place where the medium filling the universe is literally flowing inward, and at the center, condensing. A similar process takes place at the center of electrons in this model, so interestingly, electrons and black holes are in a sense, cousins.
Anyway, what's really interesting is that to work with such a model, you must open your mind to the concept that spacetime can flow. We can think of fluid flow, or acoustic precession, doesn't much matter, but both must be happening. Spacetime and the medium filling the universe must be flowing into black holes, and, by the way, out of stars in proportion to their rate of fusion activity.
That's why when a star ignites, t-tauri jets come shooting out along with the turning on of the outward flow of spacetime and the medium that was previously, acoustically, confined at the centers of the matter standing waves, and released during fusion reactions.
There ought to be (based on model) a ~Maxwellian increase in T, peak at the event horizon, then decreasing T inside. Bob outside can communicate with outside universe, Alice inside cannont.....BUT, Bob and Alice can communicate together just fine and won't notice anything strange aside from increasing T due to build up in orbiting photons and particles.After things cool off for Alice, she get's spaghettified, then slam, into the black hole core.
Can't get out unless the BH goes "Active" and shoots hard jets back outward from it's core, boiling off the condensate and inflating universe.
rt
My earlier comment may not make much sense, but thought that as long as I've said anything, I may as well add a little more fodder.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTreating matter and spacetime as different geometries of acoustic structures leads to a falsifiable expectation.
Mass corresponds to a quantity of the medium filling the universe. We could call this aether, quintescence, or whatever. The expectation that mass equates to a quantity of that medium leads directly to the expectation that:
1) Exothermic reactions emit the medium
2) Endothermic reactions absorb (condense) the medium
With those two simple statements, you can test the model, at least qualitatively. When a star ignites, space must start shooting outward, and some of the matter of the star ought to get carried off with it. See t-tauri jets and planetary nebulae.
Flow must be into black holes, and out of Big Bang as the core of a universe sized black hole must have breached all at once. And active galactic nuclei jets must originate from inside of the event horizon, at a core of condensed medium at the center of the black hole.
Anyway, you can test the notion above using the two statements on any astrophysical phenomena you like and you'll fail to prove it false....at least I haven't been able to prove it false yet.
Anytime the fusion activity in an object changes, there manifests something unusual that cannot be explained with current physics. And the "direction" of the unusual new effect is always in the same direction as the flow of space must be.
YOu can even apply it to dark matter...the flow of space out of a galaxy is decreasing in radially outward direction.....so that's a deceleration, and dark matter is an idea used to impose an inward directed acceleration. Dark energy is just the opposite, the total emission outward from all galaxies.
Anyway, I've tried to prove it wrong to no avail. I even realized that if the flow is out of stars, and into black holes, then there ought to be a flow stagnation region outside of galactic black holes. A place where the flow out of stars balances the flow into the central massive black hole. turns out, there is a dusty disk that happens to "live" at a radius that makes sense with the model.......a disk that shouldn't be there according to current ideas I'm aware of....but then I'm not the expert to say the least.
Clearly, these simple comments are a long ways from an "explanation" or "theory". they are, however, curious and interesting to explore. It's especially interesting to test the 2 tenets above on real objects.
rt
proof might exist if you could somehow show nuclei exiting an event horizon?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe: Cramer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTime-dilation would cause an outside observer to require an infinite amount of time, however it would take a finite amount of time for the object wilthin its own frame of reference.
Secondly black hole are primarily caused by the collapse of star that is not the only thing that can be a a black whole (ie if you detonated an atomic bomb of all the deuterium (H-2) in all the water on earth you would cause a microblack hole (about the size of planks length)
Finally matter does not contract as it approaches an event horizont it becomes "spaghettified". Energy would be released via hawking radiation if it's a singularity or throught friction between particles in the accretion disk of a Kerr-Nordstrum black hole
"Anyway, what's really interesting is that to work with such a model, you must open your mind to the concept that spacetime can flow"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgainst which background. spacetime shall flow? For spacetime to flow, there should be some background spacetime within which, spacetime of physical universe should transport
can anyone venture an opinion as to whether quantum entanglement is or is not a manifestation of multidimensional physics?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think multidimensional physics probably explains entanglement as well all other 'bizarre' quantum behavior. If one accepts that extra time dimensions must be included with the extra space dimensions then one could explain the so-called 'spooky action at a distance'. The extra time dimensions arise as a consequence of stratum dependent variations of the constant c in which the velocity of constant c is higher in the lower strata of a 3 tiered, 12 dimensional (hierarchically stratified) space-time geometry. Each stratum would have its own 4 dimensional space-time structure, and the variation of the constant c in each stratum permits an exchange of information between particles that exceeds the velocity of c as measured in the uppermost stratum (the one we are familiar with). In other words, as a particle oscillates through the 3 tiered 12 dimensional structure it is capable of exchanging information faster than the traditional velocity of c as it oscillates through the lower strata. This requires a stratum specific application of the Lorentz equations that could possibly explain everything. antigravitationalforce.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisas i am not locked into structured mathematical architectures by training and education, so i can venture opinions that seem revelant to me from a purely conceptual perspective. one such is that nothing i have heard so far denies the possibility that gravity is a foundational dimension instead of a force as i have heard. any thoughts?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChristnaak
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMystical and spiritual schools of some religions, particularly Hinduism about which I am more aware, state that the entire nature is composed of three distinct layers -- Physical, astral and causal. Each layer of Nature has its own matter, energy , space and time. There have also been people who have entered these layers of Nature in deep meditation stages ( Samaadhii), seen and studied those layers of Nature and subsequently described the same in vivid and graphical details. May be three starta of nature having 12 dimensions, as indicated by you in your comments, correspond to three layers of Nature as described by such Mystics.
But modern Physics has not yet unraveled the mystery of 3 starta of nature having extra dimensions or 3 layers of mystics -- physical, astral and causal
It is the oscillatory motion of particles through the 12 dimensional framework that accounts for wave/particle duality as well as for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. At higher frequencies the oscillatory motion through this tristratum structure (with its stratum specific variation of constant c as well as stratum specific variation in relativistic effects) is more rapid and therefore, more particle-like. If a photon interacts with a particle in an experiment it increases the velocity of oscillatory motion thru the tristratum framework rendering the particle more particle-like and permitting the location of its position. However, by doing so we have changed the momentum of the particle both in the direction of its oscillatory motion thru the tristratum structure of 12 dimensions, as well in the uppermost 4 dimensional stratum with which we are familiar with in the macroscopic world. If I am correct then it would seem that if one could develop the correct equation to accurately describe and measure the oscillatory motion in the aforementioned model one could then determine with equal accuracy (in principle) both the position and momentum of a particle. The aforementioned model can also explain the results of the two slit experiment. antigravitationalforce.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA quantum theory of gravity with an attendant postulation of the existence of gravitons would appear to represent a return to the notion of gravity as a force. I have never felt entirely comfortable with the notion of gravity being represented by curvature of space-time. I have always felt that space-time curvature (or more properly space-time contraction) does not itself represent gravity, but is rather a result of gravity- an exchange of virtual particles between bodies of mass that results in a local contraction of space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOops! I meant to say "I have always felt that space-time curvature (or more properly space contraction) does not itself represent gravity,.... Gravity causes space to contract and time to dilate. Space-time curvature is an epiphenomenon of gravity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeep going on your plasma cosmology rants. We all believe you.
if i were to merge concepts such as multidimensional physics and Mr. oldershaw's fractal cosmology, i would seem to come up with a reality that has a core surrounded by layers or some such. and yet spirals are very common in our 4d reality? very strange. possibly gravity is the core, and time is the first layer/shell?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisROTATION, ROTATION, ROTATION -
Everyone seems to leave this small fact out of the equation. To say the leat, a Black hole rotates very fast and poor little Alice would find it Impossible to fall straight into a Black hole. She would find herself in a rapidly degrading orbit and spaghettified, as she approched the event horizon. Approching the event horizon, she would then be shredded into individule atoms and become part of the accretion disc and only after that, would she enter into the black hole itself.
As for information being forever lost inside the black hole, this is not possible, as the function of a "BH" is the the same as a star, they both fuse particles together and create heavier elements and with the extreme gravity of a BH, the only limit to the elements that a "BH" could create would be limited only to the gravity of the "BH" and then they would be ejected from the "BH" through the North and South poles, thus NO information would be lost.
Hello people.Do not know about anyone best for an organization who would be interested in how the universe really works.Can anyone speak but if you are curious about what is in modern theoretical physics wrong, but it is actually pretty much all of Einstein's theory is flawed and quantum mechanics is incomplete.Should anyone be interested in mathematical and logical proof that Einstein's theory is wrong let you hear by email:jozef.czobor@gmail.com Thank you
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this