Plugging the hole in Hawking's black hole theory

Mar 24, 2014
Professor Chris Adami, Physics and Astronomy. Credit: G.L. Kohuth

(Phys.org) —Recently physicists have been poking holes again in Stephen Hawking's black hole theory – including Hawking himself. For decades physicists across the globe have been trying to figure out the mysteries of black holes – those fascinating monstrous entities that have such intense gravitational pull that nothing – not even light – can escape from them. Now Professor Chris Adami, Michigan State University, has jumped into the fray.

The debate about the behavior of black holes, which has been ongoing since 1975, was reignited when Hawking posted a blog on Jan. 22, 2014, stating that event horizons – the invisible boundaries of black holes – do not exist.

Hawking, considered to be the foremost expert on black holes, has over the years revised his and continues to work on understanding these cosmic puzzles.

One of the many perplexities is a decades-old debate about what happens to information – matter or energy and their characteristics at the atomic and subatomic level – in black holes.

"In 1975, Hawking discovered that aren't all black. They actually radiate a featureless glow, now called Hawking radiation," Adami said. "In his original theory, Hawking stated that the radiation slowly consumes the black hole and it eventually evaporates and disappears, concluding that information and anything that enters the black hole would be irretrievably lost."

But this theory created a fundamental problem, dubbed the information paradox. Now Adami believes he's solved it.

"According to the laws of quantum physics, information can't disappear," Adami said. "A loss of information would imply that the universe itself would suddenly become unpredictable every time the black hole swallows a particle. That is just inconceivable. No law of physics that we know allows this to happen."

So if the black hole sucks in information with its intense gravitational pull, then later disappears entirely, information and all, how can the laws of quantum physics be preserved?

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
MSU Professor Chris Adami believes he has found the solution to a long-standing problem with Stephen Hawking's black hole theory in a groundbreaking new study recently published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity. Shot by G.L. Kohuth

The solution, Adami says, is that the information is contained in the of radiation, which must accompany the Hawking radiation – the glow that makes a black hole not so black. Stimulated emission makes the black hole glow in the information that it swallowed.

"Stimulated emission is the physical process behind LASERS (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation). Basically, it works like a copy machine: you throw something into the machine, and two identical somethings come out.

"If you throw information at a black hole, just before it is swallowed, the black hole first makes a copy that is left outside. This copying mechanism was discovered by Albert Einstein in 1917, and without it, physics cannot be consistent," Adami said.

Do others agree with Adami's theory that stimulated emission is the missing piece that solves the information paradox?

According to Paul Davies, cosmologist, astrobiologist and theoretical physicist at Arizona State University, "In my view Chris Adami has correctly identified the solution to the so-called black hole information paradox. Ironically, it has been hiding in plain sight for years. Hawking's famous black hole radiation is an example of so-called spontaneous emission of radiation, but it is only part of the story. There must also be the possibility of stimulated emission -– the process that puts the S in LASER."

With so many researchers trying to fix Hawking's theory, why did it take so long if it was hiding in plain sight?

"While a few people did realize that the stimulated emission effect was missing in Hawking's calculation, they could not resolve the paradox without a deep understanding of quantum communication theory," Adami said. Quantum communication theory was designed to understand how information interacts with quantum systems, and Adami was one of the pioneers of quantum information theory back in the '90s.

Trying to solve this information paradox has kept Adami awake many nights as demonstrated by his thick notebooks filled with 10 years of mathematical calculations.

So where does this leave us, according to Adami?

"Stephen Hawking's wonderful theory is now complete in my opinion. The hole in the black hole theory is plugged, and I can now sleep at night," he said.

Adami may now sleep well at night, but his theory is sure to keep other physicists up trying to confirm whether he has actually solved the mystery.

The study was co-authored by Greg Ver Steeg, University of Southern California and is published online in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity.

Explore further: Black holes do not exist as we thought they did

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Black holes do not exist as we thought they did

Feb 14, 2014

On January 24, the journal Nature published an article entitled "There are no black holes." It doesn't take much to spark controversy in the world of physics... But what does this really mean? In a brief ...

Physicists propose test for loop quantum gravity

Jan 03, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- As a quantum theory of gravity, loop quantum gravity could potentially solve one of the biggest problems in physics: reconciling general relativity and quantum mechanics. But like all tentative ...

Recommended for you

Mystery of rare five-hour space explosion explained

Sep 17, 2014

Next week in St. Petersburg, Russia, scientists on an international team that includes Penn State University astronomers will present a paper that provides a simple explanation for mysterious ultra-long gamma-ray ...

Glowing galaxies in telescopic timelapse

Sep 17, 2014

We often speak of the discoveries and data flowing from astronomical observatories, which makes it easy to forget the cool factor. Think of it—huge telescopes are probing the universe under crystal-clear ...

User comments : 16

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Jizby
Mar 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jizby
Mar 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Mar 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2014
@Jizby. :)

Thanks for your interesting relevant comments on the topic, mate; and also for your link to that 1987 paper on that black hole stimulated emission theory. :)

@Dr_toad. :)

Have you any science-based comments on what Jizby posted? Or any sensible comments at all....even non-science based comments would do if they were at least even vaguely sensible of the information presented and topic involved? :)
Jizby
Mar 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2014
@Jizby. :)

Thanks for your interesting relevant comments on the topic, mate; and also for your link to that 1987 paper on that black hole stimulated emission theory. :)

@Dr_toad. :)

Have you any science-based comments on what Jizby posted? Or any sensible comments at all....even non-science based comments would do if they were at least even vaguely sensible of the information presented and topic involved? :)


@ And thankee you Really-Skippy for never having any science stuffs to say. Just keeping everyone talking the way you want them to talk keeps you pretty busy, eh Cher? Still thinking you are the Big Chief, and that is why you have to keep the silly looking pointy cap on you head, you.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Really-Skippy why you didn't take the moderatoring job they offered you, eh?

shavera
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2014
NB: We'd long suspected that information was being carried away through Hawking radiation. This isn't a wild revolution of that concept. Just a modification on the exact mechanism with which it's leaving. The article seems to make it out to be much bigger than that.
shavera
5 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2014
Returners
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2014
I'm so tired of hypotheses being incorrectly labelled as theories.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2014
I'm so tired of hypotheses being incorrectly labelled as theories.


Well then Returner-Skippy maybe you should tell the scientist peoples you are tired of the way they label their workings. Nothing we can do about it no. But ol Ira is thinking they might know a little bit more than the Returner-Skippy, eh? Hooeei, I got an idea for you Cher. Why you don't just get the scientist job and climb up the scientist ladder until you are the Big Science Boss? Then you can name all the labels you want and they will have to listen to you.
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2014
You guys don't even believe in conservation of energy. You believe "nothing" became "something".

The statement:
0 = 1 - 1

Does not conserve information, because the operation is irreversible due to the right side being indeterminent, given only the left side..

0 = ???

0 = 0
0 = 3 - 3
0 = 0/5
0 = 0*7

The theory that everything came from nothing does not conserve information because the alleged expression summing to zero is irreversible with regards to discreet solutions, which are "information".

Next problem:

Hawking Radiation would not be evidence of a Black Hole having lost mass. In fact, it would be evidence to the contrary, as one of the two virtual particles went into the black hole, it must be increasing in mass, or some other property equating to or approximating mass (Energy, momentum).
Osiris1
1 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2014
What particle is associated with Hawking radiation? Neutrinos and wimps are all subject to gravity however weakly, so these could not get out of a 'hole' of infinite gravity. Unless of course that gravity there is not infinite. After all, the gravitational force there still is based on the mass contained therein, and no bigger than the total of the star or stars that make it up.
Of course suppose the hole is a hole in the universe looking out into superspace or into another universe. And suppose there is no mass there at all, it all left into the other, quickly!.....leaving only a vacuum cleaner in space to suck up matter in our universe.
animah
5 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2014
The theory that everything came from nothing

No -the scientific theory is that everything came from a singularity. That's absolutely not "nothing", in fact it's very full indeed!

Where that singularity came from we can't say, but:

- First there is no physical requirement for it to have come from nothing. Why should there be "nothing" at any point?

- Second you can't even say "before the singularity" - this was before time even existed. A very different mechanism must have been at play.

If you posit the singularity *must* have an origin, it must have been something other than time and space because these are dimensions that could not have existed in or around it. That much is mathematically proven.

Nobody says it isn't an open problem!
dtxx
5 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2014
Zeph, nobody here is buying what you are selling. You are like a telemarketer who sits at his desk all day, every day, year after year calling the exact same number over and over trying to sell a treadmill to a quadriplegic. Maybe for the good of everyone involved you should just move on and think us all irredeemable idiots? When you are ready to give us some math that describes your interpretation of AWT instead of water surface analogies, or you get a peer reviewed article published, then by all means come back and we'll have something to talk about.

For the rest of us, here is something far more entertaining, informative, accurate, and educational than anything Zeph has ever said:

http://www.youtub...-fVtT16k

animah
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2014
0 = ???

0 = 0
0 = 3 - 3


42 = ???

42 = 21 + 21
42 = 954344 - 954302

Or any other number

Meaningless

adam_russell_9615
not rated yet Mar 29, 2014
Information cannot disappear? I thought entropy said that the universe always tends toward being more disordered. Doesnt that imply less information?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Mar 30, 2014
Hawking Radiation would not be evidence of a Black Hole having lost mass. In fact, it would be evidence to the contrary, as one of the two virtual particles went into the black hole, it must be increasing in mass, or some other property equating to or approximating mass (Energy, momentum).
Hawking's hypothesis states that from a distant observer's point of view, the infalling particle will have "negative energy," therefore constituting a subtraction of mass/energy from the black hole.

Personally, I think he may have excluded gravitational potential energy in his original formulation, which is relevant to the distant observer, and would nullify his hypothesis.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2014
Plugging the hole in Hawking's black hole theory


Good luck with that...

http://nla.gov.au...n4728563
Jizby
Mar 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Jizby
Mar 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
El_Nose
2 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2014
@returners

I was under the impression that the universe formed from nothing is proven by the fac thtat the universe is flat. If something had seeded the universe it would have more curvature and the fact that it is flat is proof that nothing seeded it's existance. And it is a conservation of energy issue on the universe being flat.
11791
not rated yet Apr 03, 2014
I found this on Scientific Americans' website today "The firewall problem is related to a paradox that Hawking first pointed out in the 1970s. It concerns this question: What happens to information that falls into a black hole? The rules of quantum mechanics require that information can never be lost. Even burning a book doesn't destroy the information inside—it just scrambles it up. But black holes do seem to destroy information, sucking it past the event horizon, a point of no return."

There's no law of conservation of information. According to Einstein mass-energy is conserved and so are spin and electric charge. Its very easy to lower the amount of information in an object by scrambling its structure with excess heat or other ways.

Why is everybody so wrong about this?