Black holes don't erase information, scientists say

April 2, 2015 by Charlotte Hsu
An artist's impression shows the surroundings of a supermassive black hole at the heart of the active galaxy NGC 3783 in the southern constellation of Centaurus. A new University at Buffalo study finds that -- contrary to what some physicists have argued for the years -- information is not lost once it has entered a black hole. The research presents explicit calculations showing how information is, in fact, preserved. Credit: ESO/M. Kornmesser

The "information loss paradox" in black holes—a problem that has plagued physics for nearly 40 years—may not exist.

Shred a document, and you can piece it back together. Burn a book, and you could theoretically do the same. But send into a black hole, and it's lost forever.

That's what some physicists have argued for years: That are the ultimate vaults, entities that suck in information and then evaporate without leaving behind any clues as to what they once contained.

But new research shows that this perspective may not be correct.

"According to our work, information isn't lost once it enters a black hole," says Dejan Stojkovic, PhD, associate professor of physics at the University at Buffalo. "It doesn't just disappear."

Stojkovic's new study, "Radiation from a Collapsing Object is Manifestly Unitary," appeared on March 17 in Physical Review Letters, with UB PhD student Anshul Saini as co-author.

The paper outlines how interactions between particles emitted by a black hole can reveal information about what lies within, such as characteristics of the object that formed the black hole to begin with, and characteristics of the matter and energy drawn inside.

This is an important discovery, Stojkovic says, because even physicists who believed information was not lost in black holes have struggled to show, mathematically, how this happens. His new paper presents explicit calculations demonstrating how information is preserved, he says.

The research marks a significant step toward solving the "information loss paradox," a problem that has plagued physics for almost 40 years, since Stephen Hawking first proposed that black holes could radiate energy and evaporate over time. This posed a huge problem for the field of physics because it meant that information inside a black hole could be permanently lost when the black hole disappeared—a violation of quantum mechanics, which states that information must be conserved.

Information hidden in particle interactions

In the 1970s, Hawking proposed that black holes were capable of radiating particles, and that the energy lost through this process would cause the black holes to shrink and eventually disappear. Hawking further concluded that the particles emitted by a black hole would provide no clues about what lay inside, meaning that any information held within a black hole would be completely lost once the entity evaporated.

Though Hawking later said he was wrong and that information could escape from black holes, the subject of whether and how it's possible to recover information from a black hole has remained a topic of debate.

Stojkovic and Saini's new paper helps to clarify the story.

Instead of looking only at the particles a black hole emits, the study also takes into account the subtle interactions between the particles. By doing so, the research finds that it is possible for an observer standing outside of a black hole to recover information about what lies within.

Interactions between particles can range from gravitational attraction to the exchange of mediators like photons between . Such "correlations" have long been known to exist, but many scientists discounted them as unimportant in the past.

"These correlations were often ignored in related calculations since they were thought to be small and not capable of making a significant difference," Stojkovic says. "Our explicit calculations show that though the correlations start off very small, they grow in time and become large enough to change the outcome."

Explore further: Seeking proof for the no-hair theorem

More information: Physical Review Letters, journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.111301

Related Stories

Seeking proof for the no-hair theorem

September 9, 2014

According to general relativity, a black hole has three measurable properties: mass, rotation (angular momentum), and charge. That's it. If you know those three things, you know all there is to know about the black hole. ...

Plugging the hole in Hawking's black hole theory

March 24, 2014

(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 ...

Recommended for you

Camera able to capture imagery of an optical Mach cone

January 23, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers at Washington University in St. Louis has built a camera apparatus capable of capturing moving imagery of an optical Mach cone. In their paper published in the journal Science Advances, ...

Experiment resolves mystery about wind flows on Jupiter

January 23, 2017

One mystery has been whether the jets exist only in the planet's upper atmosphere—much like the Earth's own jet streams—or whether they plunge into Jupiter's gaseous interior. If the latter is true, it could reveal clues ...

Melting solid below the freezing point

January 23, 2017

Phase transitions surround us—for instance, liquid water changes to ice when frozen and to steam when boiled. Now, researchers at the Carnegie Institution for Science have discovered a new phenomenon of so-called metastability ...

86 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

erholp
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2015
Hmmm... I don't think that there truly is a conservation law for information...?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (17) Apr 02, 2015
Black holes do not exist in reality. Only on paper in mathematic equations that are not consistent with reality. The matter that this hypothetical objects swalow according to popular theory is accelerated to near light speed and every atom of this matter gain enoumous mass according to theory of ralativity. Respectively required energy for this acceleration became also enoumos and will consume all available energy of the black hole during this process. So before only one atom fall in the singularity black hole will evaporate. Just one of many contardictions of this theory. But craftsmen in the science like it because it maintain constant income without much effort of thought.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (17) Apr 02, 2015
This is the reason why matter never fall on gravitational stars that exist in realty but is rejected with great speed in perpendicular direction.
jerry_bushman_7
1 / 5 (15) Apr 02, 2015
Evaporation? Black holes are not evaporating. When matter is finally overpowered by the black hole and starts to be crushed, immense energy is created and is ejected at the poles. A black hole may be rotating at a speed greater than the speed of light, yet have a gravity great enough to capture the matter yet allow the energy release due to rotational speed. Matter as dense as that in a black hole simply can not evaporate. Evaporation is when a liquid becomes a gas. true solids don't evaporate. Outside a black hole a solid can become a liquid and then evaporate, but there are no liquids in a black hole.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (12) Apr 02, 2015
Ok, the more precise expression is radiate energy. To speed up even one atom to the speed of light, according to the theory of relativity, black hole will have to spend all the energy and will disappear before this atom to fall into the singularity. Just one contadiction in this theory.
Dethe
1 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2015
Black holes are not evaporating
This is the consequence of the fact, they're not black which is the consequence of the fact, they don't erase (all) information.
gkam
3 / 5 (7) Apr 02, 2015
What information? Doesn't it all get smeared and seared into plasma in the accretion disk?
Stylz
3.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2015
Just the fluctuations in space time at the Planck scale on the event horizon reveal information about what is being sucked in right? So if you had the proper means, the proper extremely complex algorithm, you could theoretically recover data about what went into the black hole right?
fourinfinities
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2015
Computers don't erase information, IT experts say, although it can get written over...
ian_miller
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2015
I fI burn a book, I am ready to bet that nobody who does not know what book I am burning can possibly put the information back together. It is lost. If I throw a book into a black hole I believe it is also lost forever because before it gets there the chemistry will destroy the paper (although in fairness I cannot demonstrate this). Who can prove information is conserved?
OceanDeep
4 / 5 (5) Apr 02, 2015
I know I am a layman, but I don't understand how burning a book doesn't lose information.

Also, don't laws of thermodynamics mean that information can't remain intact over time?

Also, is it not possible that the gravitational distortions near the black hole but not in it also "absorb" some of this information in the form of energy?

I just don't understand the distinction between intelligible data being lost (as in a book) and stuff going into a black hole. I mean, sure the book ashes are not lost, but any meaning in the book is gone forever as far as I know.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Apr 02, 2015
I know I am a layman, but I don't understand how burning a book doesn't lose information.
@OceanDeep

try reading up a little here: https://en.wikipe..._paradox
if that doesn't help, try reading this link: http://physicswor...mplified

Hope that helps
tommo
5 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2015
In a manner, aren't black holes transformative not destructive? ... energy = matter doesn't deny that the transformation carried something with it or not, it's just an equation of total energy, yes?

Thus the thesis seems on solid grounds, "Our explicit calculations show that though the correlations start off very small, they grow in time and become large enough to change the outcome.".

Very small is not to be ignored!!! ...
allergg
1 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2015
Black holes are the brightest stars in the sky. We can't see them because the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. So, photons either orbit the black hole or crash down to the surface. I beleive black holes have and "atmospheer" of photons, electrons, etc. Below the atmospheer, the black hole may have a "crust" of protons and neutrons. Below the 'crust', black holes may have a "mantle" of quarks. And below that , a core of 'locked' quarks forming a 'solid' body. At the centre of black holes, matter might be squeezed out of existance and return to energy. As such, black holes do "evaporate" but internally. At some point, black holes will 'evaporate' enough mass internally to lower the escape velocity. Then, a "white hole" will be born and energy and is returned (information) to the sky. The universe remains ballanced.
AGreatWhopper
3.5 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2015
Like watching Russian toddlers argue about a Medieval French poem written by a madman.

I think the author is using obtuse quantum physics language in what appears to be classical physics statements, hence talking about "information" in a way that really means "matter/energy". The example with burning the book isn't right even in the QM world, though, so one has to read the original article to get a clue about what is actually meant.
RhoidSlayer
2 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2015
immaguess

information is a state of order in energy or matter .
the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells you what happens to information .
if the universe is closed , if it is open , and for those ranges in between .
space is a black hole populated by black holes .
and the universe exists between the event horizon of one and the event horizons of the others .
Accata
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2015
The situation is not so complicated - the black holes are concept of general relativity only. But the small scales are driven with quantum mechanics, which violates the general relativity by 109 orders of magnitude. Therefore the smaller the black hole gets, the more it will follow the principles of quantum mechanics instead of general relativity. And the quantum mechanics predicts, all massive objects will evaporate into infinity - exactly the opposite outcome, than the general relativity. Therefore the scope of black hole evaporation is just a matter of their size.
Kedas
5 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2015
Hmmm... I don't think that there truly is a conservation law for information...?

There should be.
Doug_Huffman
5 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2015
Leponard Susskind lectures at length on his 'Minus First Law of Physics' IIRC in his analysis, the unit analysis of information is energy.
Neodim
5 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2015
Existing matter - there is information.
vic1248
5 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2015
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity postulates that nothing escapes Black Holes, not even light, beyond what's called the "Event Horizon," a point of no return. That conflicts with a basic concept of the Quantum Theory which postulates that data cannot be destroyed. Every particle/system in this existence has its data retained in its "Wave Function." Einstein's Theory of General Relativity postulates that even that data gets destroyed at the "Event Horizon," the point of no return; therefore, it and the Quantum Theory CANNOT be reconciled.

Stephen Hawking theorized that system data in the "Wave Function" does escape Black Holes in the form of radiation energy at the "Event Horizon." Even that does not solve the problem. Many Theoretical Physicists postulate that such system data in the form of radiation energy at the "Event Horizon" is only scrambled data and irrecoverable to the original "Wave Function." Most scientists believe Einstein's postulation.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2015
The situation is not so complicated - the black holes are concept of general relativity only. But the small scales are driven with quantum mechanics, which violates the general relativity


How about if you go to a site where the entire thesis of General Relativity is set forth, find the section to which you are making reference & Copy & Paste the words from GR which you think are the words of GR making reference to BHs.

I have studied in great detail Einsteins' GR & have never come across anything close to what you're talking about. The Einstein Field Equations set forth ONLY the laws of gravity via which Schwarzchild set up his calculations for the SCHWARZCHILD RADIUS from which BHs are predicted to exist based on radius & mass.

So, I'll say it again, produce a link to that part of GR that via which you think Einstein predicted BHs, then explain to us how that section of GR is predictive of BHs.
Accata
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2015
The whole result will depend on the ratio, in which we will mix the general relativity and quantum mechanics equation. These equations lead to the opposite results and their mixing ratio is arbitrary => you cannot get any definitive decision about black hole behavior, because they're not hole, neither fully black in fact.
Accata
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2015
then explain to us how that section of GR is predictive of BHs
This proof has been made first with Friedman in 1923 and later in 1964 with Hartle and others, who did try to calculate the behavior of gravitational geon, i.e. the object, composed of gravitational waves only (pure general relativity object). His result was, such a geon must be unstable and collapse into singularity under all circumstances. The situation is therefore quite the opposite: the physicists tried to invent a system, which would result the gravitational collapse, but they failed. This is because the dynamic solution of Einstein's equations is unstable and it always leads into singularity or eternal expansion.
Accata
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2015
Errata: "which would result" should be "which would resist"....

This situation will radically change, if we consider the extradimensions, for example - but the vanilla formulation of general relativity is four dimensional only and it doesn't consider the extradimensions and it cannot prohibit the collapse of massive objects.

Which also means, that every quasistable massive body inside of our Universe (including the Earth or just You) violates the general relativity. The only reason, why you will not collapse into singularity according to general relativity are the hyperdimensional / quantum mechanical effects, which are prohibiting it.
carlitos1327
4.7 / 5 (14) Apr 03, 2015
Apparently many of you don't understand black hole dynamics, quantum mechanics nor general relativity.

Black holes can't spin at super luminal speeds because nothing with rest mass is allowed by special relativity to exceed the speed of light.

Black holes are black bodies that emit heat and therefore "radiate" electromagnetism and therefore are allowed by the laws of physics to evaporate via Hawking radiation.

Black holes do exist, their mass signatures are measured precisely, their gravitational affects on stars orbiting around them have been observed, the accretion disks of matter surrounding their event horizons have been imaged in the infrared spectrum and the math supporting their existence has been well understood for nearly a century.

Read up on facts supporting the phenomenon before you make false and erroneous statements about subject matter that you fail to comprehend.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2015
"The situation is not so complicated - the black holes are concept of general relativity only. But the small scales are driven with quantum mechanics, which violates the general relativity"..................

Please Accata, the above is what you specifically stated was contained in Einsteins' GR, then you went off the wall & inserted others into the discussion whose work came long after Einstein published GR. Now look, we're talking ONLY about GR here, everything else is a side issue including discussions of Schwarzchild radii & the others you named. Again, produce the words/equations of the GR section that predict BHs.
SHREEKANT
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2015
Please refer my 2nd OPINION written on 24th, Jan'2015 under heading "Theory of Everything – on the basis of Dark atom & Dark energy". In which I had clearly written:

12. "in black hole information are lost"

2ND OPINION: in fact there is no information loss in sense matter & energy goes in matter & energy comes out. One side matters are destructed on other side matters are created [can be explained by the inner structure of galactic core & formation]. 

http://swarajgrou...sis.html
Accata
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2015
Again, produce the words/equations of the GR section that predict BHs
Check the unsteady Friedman solution or Hartle's solution. They both lead into Schwarzchild metric of black hole.

Intuitively it's quite evident, that if curved space-time exhibits some nonzero positive mass or energy density according to general relativity, this mass density will contribute to gravitational collapse in avalanche-like way, until the singularity (i.e. infinitely curved space-time) will be formed.
Accata
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2015
Black holes do exist, their mass signatures are measured precisely, their gravitational affects on stars orbiting around them have been observed, the accretion disks of matter surrounding their event horizons have been imaged in the infrared spectrum and the math supporting their existence has been well understood for nearly a century
They're not physical singularities and their event horizon is not fully formed and they contain firewall (physical surface beneath the even horizon). In dense aether model the gravity results from shielding of longitudinal waves of vacuum with massive bodies. If the body would collapse to zero volume, it couldn't shield anything anymore, therefore the massive bodies cannot collapse into pin-point singularity: the mechanism of gravity field formation itself prohibits it.

But the general relativity doesn't care about this mechanism, so it does lead into unphysical solutions.
Accata
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2015
Try to think about this: the Schwarzchild solution of black holes considers the highest (actually infinite) curvature of space-time just at the center of black hole. But the common massive bodies have highest space-time curvature at their surface, where the gravitational field gets strongest. If such massive body will collapse, then the space-time curvature will increase - but at the surface of massive body, not in its center. Under certain moment the density of space-time at the surface will get higher, than the density of massive body itself and the massive body wouldn't collapse anymore due to its buyoancy - it will change into undulating quantum wave, which will attempt to sink down its surface into its volume. It will be probably surrounded with event horizon, so it would resemble the black hole in classical sense - but internally it will remain complex dynamic object with fuzzy but developed physical surface, composed mostly of gravitons and neutrinos.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2015
Again, produce the words/equations of the GR section that predict BHs
Check the http://link.sprin...55309811 solution. They both lead into Schwarzchild metric of black hole.

No, you have the sequence wrong. First Schwarzchild came up with his calculations of the SCHWARZCHILD RADIUS, This was 1917 the year following the 1916 publication of GR. Schwarzchild had already been working on his "radii" for a number of years but couldn't make it work because he didn't have the proper gravity calculations. The Friedman material didn't come along until many years later.

Intuitively it's quite evident.............if curved space-time exhibits some nonzero positive mass or energy density according to general relativity, this mass density will contribute to gravitational collapse in avalanche-like way
But this is not in GR, you are spinning a narrative as evidenced by your use of the word "Intuitively", your words, not Einsteins'.

swordsman
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2015
"Black Holes" keep changing by the month and year, at least in the eyes of astrophysicists. Einstein invented the idea, and claimed that no radiation is possible from a "black hole".
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2015
I know I am a layman, but I don't understand how burning a book doesn't lose information.
@OceanDeep

try reading up a little here: https://en.wikipe..._paradox

Hope that helps

Another might be the youtube 'Black hole Wars' where Leonard Susskind talks about this & his discussions with Hawking. LS also discusses the amount & location of information.
@Benni I admit that Einstein didn't have compact mass in mind when he made the prediction of light deflection in a grav field but it was predicted by 2GM/rc² and he did wonder about the '...influence of grav fields...' on light. So the BH/light discussion is only a couple steps away.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2015

@Benni I admit that Einstein didn't have compact mass in mind when he made the prediction of light deflection in a grav field but it was predicted by 2GM/rc² and he did wonder about the '...influence of grav fields...' on light.
So the BH/light discussion is only a couple steps away.


This is absolutely correct Mimath, but it is an almost appalling thing to read the narratives people spin about the contents of Einsteins' GR because all they do is read other stuff about what other people say it contains.

But carryng this a little further about the predictions of BHs vs. the Schwarzchild Radius, even that is surmised from extrapolated points from a curve on a graph. I've never read anywhere that even Schwarzchild believed the radii/density curves of his calculations would hold true all the way down to create a single point, of course extrapolated data on the curve makes this possible, it is only math that makes this prediction & not what we know about nuclear physics.

viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2015
I think that the scientific community pays too much attention to the speculative theories that have no reason to stay so long in this environment, since they were not confirmed experimentally and can not be proved. Science must be the field of rational and adequate thought, not a club for fans of science fiction whose main activity is free speculation. |There is no sense to invent the world once is created but just to watch it carefully and explore with scientific methods.
Before one can accept the idea of ​​black holes must ask to two basic questions. Do he knows well the properties of cosmic vacuum whose structure is the transmission medium of elementary particles and determine their energy interactions. And second, whether there ever was a scientific authority among the people who was undeniable? Who is lazy to thinking or does not have the enough knowledge prefers to follow human authorities. But it is so uncertain bearing in mind the history of science.
thefurlong
4.9 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2015
The matter that this hypothetical objects swalow according to popular theory is accelerated to near light speed and every atom of this matter gain enoumous mass according to theory of ralativity.

Actually, that argument is spurious. In GR, free-fall in a gravitational IS inertial movement. As a consequence, no energy is actually gained or lost by falling into a gravity well, any more than any energy is gained or lost by traveling in a straight line in the absence of a gravitational field. We only see this as acceleration because we are in a remote patch of space-time. That being said, some energy probably is lost to the atom undergoing fusion as it gets compressed, but that's only a guess.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2015
Inertial? Are you sure? Think again what is definition of inertial movement.

The force create acceleration of the objects -> F= m.a

Space have noting to do with time. This mantra space-time is very boring and have no sence. It is suprising to see how seriously is taken such pure speculation.

What is the reason 3 spatial dimensions to unite with the speed with which physical objects are changing their state and its position in these 3 dimensions?

thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 03, 2015
Some day, phys.org should do an article with black holes in its title, but instead make the article about chocolate pop'ems, just to see how many crackpots will take the bait and start whining about how they don't exist.

Our best theory of gravity predicts black holes. We have observed many, many, objects that appear to be black holes, just as this theory predicts. In the absence of a local sample, it would be silly of us not to learn about them as much as we can through theory, in the hopes of gaining better insight into the nature of our universe. Sure, they might not exist, but we have no reason to assume they don't based on the evidence we've seen so far. So, just stop whining. Oh, and actually learn about GR. Nobody is going to listen to your gripes if you don't at least understand the theory.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (10) Apr 03, 2015
Inertial? Are you sure? Think again what is definition of inertial movement.

The force create acceleration of the objects -> F= m.a

No, that's how force is defined in Newtonian mechanics. A more fundamental way to define it is as the time derivative of momentum. As a consequence, SR replaces F=ma with F = m_0*a*y^3, where y is the lorentz factor, and m_0 is the rest mass. In GR, we deal with local inertial reference frames as defined by the local metric. Because gravitational acceleration is just really just movement along a geodesic, then, in a local inertial reference frame, this gravitational acceleration will, once again, become 0. Hence, there is no force on the particle.

Space have noting to do with time. This mantra space-time is very boring and have no sence.

Actually space and time are very much intertwined, assuming the first postulate of SR, or the equivalence principle of GR. Basically, what you are saying is that these postulates are wrong.
vic1248
1 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2015
Please keep in mind that all of this is Theoretical Physics and not proven science. Mathematical equations and reality diverge a good deal in Theoretical Physics, hence unproven theories, and worse than that is a situation where the theory cannot be tested realistically, at least directly, e.g. Multiverse Theory, String Theory, Quantum Gravity Theory, etc.

That said, Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity's gravitational and light mathematical equations showed the effect of what is referred to as "Black Holes" but he didn't want to believe it. Later theoretical physics work showed that Einstein's GR math correctly predicts the existence of "Black Holes" and the loss of information/data at their boundaries—Event Horizons, and that, in turn, presented one of the major conflicts between the Theory of General Relativity and Quantum Physics/Mechanics, to this day.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2015
Which makes this theory best candidate for scientific credibility? And by what criterion they apear to be black holes? Which proves that only hypotetical black holes can afect near visinity in such way? If there exist cosmic objects with different mechanism of action that afects near reality in the same way? Which makes as to accept that structure of cosmic vacuum permits such annatural objects and mechanism of action?
vic1248
1 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2015
To give some perspective, the "Quantum Effects" at the nanoscale are non-local, for example, and yet, the scientific community has no choice but to accept them into science as reality. And the irony in this is that it is a reverse situation where there are no theoretical equations explaining the non-local phenomena, and they are not proven science.
thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2015
What is the reason 3 spatial dimensions to unite with the speed with which physical objects are changing their state and its position in these 3 dimensions?

I don't really understand what you are asking here, but I think it might be why we treat space and time as being united. The answer is that the invariance of the laws of physics, regardless of local inertial reference frame, is what causes us to treat space as being interchangeable with time.
Dethe
2 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2015
Our best theory of gravity predicts black holes
And our best theory of quantum field prohibits them. The quantum mechanics (which applies to dimensional scale 10^10 smaller than the human observers) predicts, every quantum wave packet of free particle would spread with speed of light into infinity The general relativity (which applies to distance scale 10^10 smaller than the human observers) predicts exactly the opposite result - the collapse of massive bodies into singular point.

The naive guess therefore is, at the human observer scale both theories will average into steady-state solution, the consequences of which we can see everywhere around us: the bees, trees, planets and sand speckles. Nothing around us expands or collapses - this is how the quantum gravity actually works: the mutual violation/compensation of both models leads into classical physics and mechanics. There is no reason to believe, that the black holes of the same size would behave differently.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 03, 2015
Please keep in mind that all of this is Theoretical Physics and not proven science.

No, not all of it. GR is about as proven as a physical theory can get, at least in a certain energy regime.
...Multiverse Theory, String Theory, Quantum Gravity Theory, etc.

The difference is that none of those are accepted theories, because there is currently no way to falsify them. There might be mysteries like DM but a mystery is not the same as a clear demonstration of wrongness.

That said, Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity's gravitational and light mathematical equations showed the effect of what is referred to as "Black Holes" but he didn't want to believe it.

So? He also didn't believe in entanglement, either, and yet that's been overwhelmingly demonstrated. He was a genius. That didn't make him omnipotent.
Dethe
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2015
Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity's gravitational and light mathematical equations showed the effect of what is referred to as "Black Holes" but he didn't want to believe it
And he was even quite right with it - his physical intuition was developed better than his ability to extend his original simplistic models. This doesn't change the fact, the general relativity in its original form (i.e. this one without all later extensions) cannot actually prohibit the black hole formation in 4D space-time. And this was also my point. We already know, that once the additional dimensions or tensor terms are involved in general relativity, then the solution of black holes will start to deviate from its generic Schwarzschild's form. On this fact the searches for extradimensions at LHC were based, for example.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2015
That said, Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity's gravitational and light mathematical equations showed the effect of what is referred to as "Black Holes" but he didn't want to believe it
You have fallen into exactly the same quandry of misinformation Accata above fell into, go back up a few posts & do some rereading.

Later theoretical physics work showed that Einstein's GR math correctly predicts the existence of "Black Holes" and the loss of information/data at their boundaries
Ok, I'll be willing to go along for a bit on this little pretend game you want to embark on. Now, because your'e the one making the claim the onus is on you to present the section in GR for presentation of this claim, then we can begin the discussion.

Dethe
2 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2015
The opponents of general relativity GE have it opposite - they want to prove, that Einstein was right, because the general relativity allegedly doesn't predict the black holes. But this is not true - the classical GR really has no tools how to prove the opposite. Today we already have many modifications of general relativity, which disfavor the black hole formation in wider or narrower range (like the Cartan/Weyl, TeVeS/MOND of Hawking's models) - but it always requires to consider some other postulates and assumptions (usually those ones borrowed from higher dimensional models and/or quantum mechanics QM). But because the QM differ from general relativity very significantly in its outcome, just a tiny introduction of QM into GR leads into flagrant violation of classical black hole model. And because physicists have no good clue, hot to mix both theories, their prediction are very poorly conditioned and fuzzy.
Dethe
2 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2015
Actually what the physicists want to derive in context of quantum gravity theories are all these hyperdimensional complex objects like the bees, trees and human brains - they just don't realize it. The immense difference in predictions of quantum mechanics and general relativity really fits all the possible richness of observable world. But from some unknown reason the contemporary physicists believe, that the natural combination of quantum theory with general relativity must apply somewhere outside the distance range of both theories at the esoteric dimensional scales (Planck or whole Universe). It's like to believe, that the natural result of hybridization of grapes and apple will not be a grapple - but a jellyfish or hummingbird. They simply missed the whole forest for the trees in subject of quantum gravity research.
vic1248
not rated yet Apr 03, 2015
@Benni

I am no expert on the Math of GR, or any Theoretical Physics' for that matter.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 03, 2015
BH's cannot do anything, they are only figments in the imaginations of fanciful mathematicians. Nonsensical pontifications of people too stupid to know how stupid they really are.
denglish
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 03, 2015
I love reading all the speculation and mis-information. Astounding!

This may be the best one so far:

Evaporation? Black holes are not evaporating. When matter is finally overpowered by the black hole and starts to be crushed, immense energy is created and is ejected at the poles.


LOL?

Read: http://en.wikiped...ical_jet
georgert
not rated yet Apr 03, 2015
I know I am a layman, but I don't understand how burning a book doesn't lose information.

Also, don't laws of thermodynamics mean that information can't remain intact over time?

Also, is it not possible that the gravitational distortions near the black hole but not in it also "absorb" some of this information in the form of energy?

I just don't understand the distinction between intelligible data being lost (as in a book) and stuff going into a black hole. I mean, sure the book ashes are not lost, but any meaning in the book is gone forever as far as I know.


Read "The Blackhole Wars" by Leonard Susskind. He writes for the layman and his book will answer your questions.
bbbbwindows
3 / 5 (6) Apr 03, 2015
This is simply a ridiculous "controversy", one that is based on concepts that have never been proven, never observed and defy confirmation. This is mathematical masturbation and has nothing to do with observed reality. When will scientists treat this whole cosmological mess as a pseudoscience that does not follow the scientific method. Whatever happened to confirmation of observations in the lab ?
To use mathematics to create reality is @#% backwards. Math should be used to confirm observations.
The field of cosmology today is a house of cards. One unproven theory is used as the basis for the next unproven theory and so on and so on. None of it is correct. Let's not mention that the known laws of physics and chemistry must completely breakdown for any of the standard model theories to be true.
My guess is that there is a simpler explanation that adheres to the known laws of physics and chemistry. New radio telescope data on electromagnetism suggests that this is the case.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2015
Gravity can not be a force interaction between the two bodies and programmed behavior of structutre of cosmic vacuum at a given point in space, which determine the behavior and interactions between these two bodies locally.
Today's fundamental science is not involved in seeking the truth and have no arguments against it. It is envolved with the promotion of convenient misconceptions in society to make it dependent on low passions and lawlessness. These misconceptions are instruiment of power, which is enslaved by the father of lies.
Dethe
1 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2015
The evidence of "preservation of information" with black holes can be seen all around us. The mature galaxies have quite tiny and unobtrusive black holes at their centers, whereas the black holes inside of young galaxies are active and very massive. This simple observation would mean at least two things: these black holes didn't form with accretion of matter into black hole from outside and they even did lost their matter during life of galaxy, during which the matter and energy of original black holes was preserved and evaporated into outside in form of jets.

Recently we got over this controversy for black hole inside of our Milky Way galaxy too, because this black hole occasionally puffs out the jets of high energy neutrinos (which manifest itself with "Fermi lobes" of X-rays), but in direct contact with clouds of interstellar gas it remains surprisingly inert - which would mean, these ejections have origin inside of black hole - not outside of it.
vic1248
1 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2015
@Benni

Here is an answer to your question:

https://answers.y...9AAPuFyU

(Please keep in mind this is all "Theoretical Physics," unproven science)
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2015
@bbbbwindows
Something is very wrong with this world and this science because father of all lies work on the final stage of its apocaliptic plan for the people on this planet. The delusion of society is the part of its strategy. It knows very well that the Creator will soon put an end to sin and wickedness in this world, so hurry. And honest people and scienties will be favored to see all attempts for silence the truth with absurd excuses.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2015
"For instance, when Scwarzschild designed his first ever black hole, he required a vacuum, i.e. T_(mu, nu) = 0; and also required spherical symmetry; i.e. that the centre of the object would be the attractor and that moving 'around' the centre, while remaining the same distance from it, you would feel no change in the gravitational field. Imposing this restriction upon the metric tensor (plus a couple of others) leads to a set of equations that can in fact be solved exactly, and the metric tensor that comes out of that describes the Schwarschild black hole, the simplest black hole model; thought of in 1916 but not called a black hole until the 60s when they realised their significance"

@Vic1248........To begin with, I don't have any questions about the content of Einsteins' GR, I know what's in it. With that said, directly above I copied & pasted from the link you provided the most accurately stated paragraph. Previous paragraphs mistakenly ascribe BHs to Einstein......cont'd
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 04, 2015
@Vic1248.....cont'd

In Einsteins' GR what he accomplished was to prove gravitational lensing, he never alluded to the concept that gravity could be so strong as to make a photon become so sharply deflected by the lensing process that the Sun could do more than just bend starlight a few degrees as it passes near its' disk.

It was Schwarzchild who saw the portent of the Einstein Field Equations for gravity to fit into his Radii vs. Mass equations by which he made the calculations that a gravity field could be so strong given a specific Radii & Mass that photons could be deflected 180 degrees.
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (9) Apr 04, 2015
"For instance, when Scwarzschild designed his first ever black hole, he required a vacuum, i.e. T_(mu, nu) = 0; and also required spherical symmetry; i.e. that the centre of the object would be the attractor and that moving 'around' the centre, while remaining the same distance from it, you would feel no change in the gravitational field. Imposing this restriction upon the metric tensor (plus a couple of others) leads to a set of equations that can in fact be solved exactly, and the metric tensor that comes out of that describes the Schwarschild black hole, the simplest black hole model; thought of in 1916 but not called a black hole until the 60s when they realised their significance"


@ Bennie-Skippy. How you are Cher?

I though you were one of those "I don't need to snip and glue from other Skippy's stuffs sort of guy"? Why you steal some other Skippy's stuff there without giving him the credit?
Bongstar420
1 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2015
I don't see how radiating the "information" constitutes a "loss." Its just to diluted to measure...

Furthermore, I don't see how perfect knowledge of the contents of a black hole would yield a perfect replication of the stuff which preceded it. You could only make things that were similar but still not identical. Finally, I don't believe fine scale phenomena are entirely discrete items unless they have determinant trajectories through extra dimensions.

Essentially, there is no "ex-nilho" for anything which also means it cannot just "disappear" in any total sense of the term.
phprof
not rated yet Apr 04, 2015
With absolutely zero way to test this "hypothesis" means it is nothing more than an interesting theoretical result.
brad_210000
1 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2015
Burn a book and you can piece it back together? What nonsense?! Who comes up with this stuff? Why don't you try "piecing back" a 10 page book let alone a regular book with hundreds or thousands of pages? Are we talking about a book with white pages in it?
PhotonX
5 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2015
Burn a book and you can piece it back together? What nonsense?! Who comes up with this stuff? Why don't you try "piecing back" a 10 page book let alone a regular book with hundreds or thousands of pages? Are we talking about a book with white pages in it?
Yes it's a horrible analogy. That doesn't mean the scientific principle the author who wrote the paper is trying to demonstrate is invalid, though, but it's a lousy way to try to illustrate it.
Dethe
3 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2015
With absolutely zero way to test this "hypothesis" means it is nothing more than an interesting theoretical result
It just means, that the black hole can radiate
martin_rives
not rated yet Apr 05, 2015
"a black hole erases information, what gets in is lost forever"
What if it didn't....... for example, you drop your phone in a hole on Earth, no one knows when it stops, how deep it is : you consider that your phone is lost forever ( and buy a new one eventually) because you do not have enough knowlege, you do not know how deep it is... maybe the hole crosses Earth and throws your phone out of it on the other side of the planet...and it might be the same for black holes :
we consider that the information is lost forever bescause we do not know where it goes out, like for the phone drooped in the hole...
Dethe
3 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2015
Whole the entropic model of black holes of contemporary physics is deeply confused, because the space-time metric undergoes the topological space-time inversion at the event horizon (compare the illustrative picture of space-time foam at the vicinity of black hole). It does lead into informational paradox of black holes, because the physicists cannot realize, that the entropic expansion and evaporation of matter above the event horizon corresponds the gravitational condensation of it beneath the event horizon. If this topological inversion gets considered, then the entropyduring fall of matter into black hole not only never gets wasted - but it's actually fully preserved instead - so we can consider the black holes simply as an extensions (sorta high-dimensional lobes) of observable Universe.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2015
Whole the entropic model of black holes of contemporary physics
What exactly is an "entropic model" of BHs?

gravitational condensation
What is this gravity condensation stuff?
the entropy during fall of matter into black hole not only never gets wasted
At this point I'm starting to wonder if you even know what "entropy" is, but at least you're correct in that "distribution of energy" never gets wasted, it's called the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle Einsteins' SR.

but it's actually fully preserved instead
Of course energy, or "information" if that's what you want to call it, is fully preserved, as in accordance with the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle of SR, better known by the equation E=mc*2, it's impossible to get anymore explicit than this that "information" (energy) is never lost.

so we can consider the black holes simply as an extensions (sorta high-dimensional lobes) of observable Universe.
So, what does this mean?

Dethe
5 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2015
What exactly is an "entropic model" of BHs?
Beckenstein-Hawking model of black hole thermodynamics
what is this gravity condensation stuff
The process opposite to expansion due to pressure of radiation, i.e. the process driven with Le-Sage shielding of omnidirectional radiation pressure of vacuum fluctuations. I.e. everything what is involved into an existing gravitational models of black hole formation: the gravitational collapse, accretion and spaghettization of matter in the vicinity of black hole.
So, what does this mean
The entropy content of our Universe doesn't change actually. Our Universe is steady-state and when some object evaporates from whatever reason in it, some other condenses somewhere else. It's omnipresent recycling of information into/from higher dimensions, but as a whole the entropy content observable in our Universe remains stable and observer dependent.
Dethe
5 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2015
you're correct in that "distribution of energy" never gets wasted
Well, this is the point - if this distribution wouldn't get preserved, then even the Hawking radiation couldn't work (at least not completely): at the very end all black holes would evaporate, but the amount of energy evaporated would be lower, than the amount of matter contained inside of them. So it's rather evident, that the black holes must preserve all information of photons (bosons) contained inside of infalling matter - or it couldn't evaporate these bosons later. Which also implies, that the black hole itself cannot be formed with pin-point singularity, or these bosons would have nowhere to hide. It must be formed with well packed, compact - nevertheless quite realistic object of finite size. Something like the dense neutrino or dark matter star. This brings the requirement of existence of physical surface of such an object, which is essentially the "firewall" concept of Polchinski.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2015
]The entropy content of our Universe doesn't change actually. Our Universe is steady-state and when some object evaporates from whatever reason in it, some other condenses somewhere else. It's omnipresent recycling of information into/from higher dimensions, but as a whole the entropy content observable in our Universe remains stable and observer dependent.
If you think "entropy" doesn't change for the Universe, are you suggesting the Universe functions as a "closed system" & is not "expanding" ?
DeliriousNeuron
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2015
Why are y'all even having this discussion? Black holes are all in your imagination.
Dethe
3 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2015
Of course, in dense aether model the space-time looks like the water surface, which is scattering the ripples into a longer wavelength. So that the light of all distant sources gets red-shifted with scattering at vacuum fluctuations, but these sources don't actually move by itself. If the Universe is in steady state, than the black holes must be recycled into a radiation and the radiation must recycle to an observable matter somewhere else, or our Universe would appear quite differently after some time. All black holes therefore must evaporate faster, than the Hawking mechanism allows and vice-versa: the condensation of matter from radiation supposed with Big Bang should continue around them. We can observe the traces of this evaporation/condensation cycle inside of every galaxy including the Milky Way.
Dethe
3 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2015
Black holes are all in your imagination
This is like to say, dark matter is all in our imagination. But it manifest itself with effects, which can be observed at distance. Just the exact nature of black hole or dark matter is questionable, not their existence as such. For example many theorists are willing to accept, that the black holes are characterized with presence of event horizon only - they don't insist on presence of singularity already. Many other theorists also already admit, that the black holes may not be fully black, and so on. In general, our understanding of black holes converges to concept of very dense and massive, but otherwise quite normal stars. For example, dense stars often exhibit pulsar jets - well and the black holes are also exhibit the jets, just sharper ones and larger. The dense stars often exhibit the protoplanetary disks around them - well, and the black holes also have galactic disks around them. Their similarity with massive stars is apparent..
Dethe
3 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2015
Ironically the difference of black holes from massive stars may not manifest itself with confirmation of general relativity, but its violations instead. For example the gravitational lensing of central black hole inside of Milky Way is apparently missing - which is strange for objects of their size and mass. We also observe, that this black hole is surprisingly inert for interstellar gas which is falling into it from outside. It brings the insight, that the black hole is object, which can be observed from inside out up to certain level. It's event horizon is fuzzy, it includes the wast portion of galactic bulge and when we approach to it, it shrinks accordingly..
Dethe
3 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2015
The less dense stars are composed of composite particles and they're capable of evaporation in form of heavier particles and energetic photons (solar wind). But the evaporation of black holes may not be so apparent, because they can radiate the photons of low energy and lightweight neutrinos or dark matter (scalar waves) only. Only such a lightweight particles could penetrate the event horizon freely. These components will therefore materialize (condense) into an observable particles at larger distance from black hole in similar way like the fog condensing above kettle emerges just at the certain distance from kettle. It will bring the illusion, they're emanated with exterior of black hole, not their interior and the evaporation of black holes will evade the attention in this way. Such a black hole could sublimate its matter with quite high speed, but it will appear dark and cool at the first sight from distance.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2015
"Ironically the difference of black holes from massive stars may not manifest itself with confirmation of general relativity, but its violations instead. For example the gravitational lensing of central black hole inside of Milky Way is apparently missing - which is strange for objects of their size and mass. We also observe, that this black hole is surprisingly inert for interstellar gas which is falling into it from outside. It brings the insight, that the black hole is object, which can be observed from inside out up to certain level. It's event horizon is fuzzy, it includes the wast portion of galactic bulge and when we approach to it, it shrinks accordingly."

Dethe: quoting you two posts up.....

Without a doubt there are bigtime problems for not finding Einstein Rings where we'd expect to observe them. You'd think also that DM theories of gravity would rectify this conundrum of failing to observe gravitational lensing of a galactic bulge, but does not in most cases.

cantdrive85
3 / 5 (8) Apr 05, 2015
What's really cool is that the top 3 inches of a unicorn's horn is the magical part. When the clowns at the LHC harness the energy within the unicorn horn then look out, BH's will appear here on Earth too a suck us into a unicorn horn vortex.

The Supermassive BH is the type of BH with the greatest concentrations of unicorn horns, call it the "Super Horny Black Hole". This super mass of unicorn horns with it's torus of Pegasus type flying unicorns surrounding the "Event Hornizon" which eventually terminates at the "Singularity of Horniness", but you'll never see anything get there because the "Great Leprechaun of the Hourglass" prevents other perspectives from observation until infinity. It is only visible from the other side, viewed through a special spectroscope shoved up the unicorn's ass. The only information that can escape is the very important info which bubbles up to the tippy top of the monstrous unicorn horn tip which will beam the info away, to Zeus...Dr. Zeus...

charlimopps
not rated yet Apr 06, 2015
The problem with blackholes is that they break the "arrow of time" portion of quantum physics. Basically, in quantum physics they say that the "arrow of time" is irrelevant. If you see an interaction like the burning book, it makes sense. If you reverse the arrow of time you can see the chemical reactions that caused the book to burn act in reverse and they make sense. But, when a blackhole destroys matter, it does so in both directions. When you reverse the arrow of time the physics of the situation does NOT work in reverse.
russ_rutter
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2015
Hawking and everyone else who thinks a black hole will evaporate are just riding some coat tails of the stupid bandwagon.

Even if black holes were to disappear. Time stopped at the event horizon to the observer and thus the universe would never witness it happening.

Try a piece of M theory instead, where the equations pops to a white hole. In which everything already happened before it did and another big bang occurred creating another universe on the other side of our spatial "membrane".

Each black hole is a seal-off from the other side of this membrane. To the white hole it would be the eventuality of the end of it's parent universe. (even though to us it hasn't happened yet)

Also the silly notion that 2 black holes can wrap space in a way you want to travel "through" is flawed as well. We can witness 2 black holes orbiting each other all the time.

-Russ
viko_mx
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2015
Black holes are a popular paradgma that provide comfort career for two or three generations of scienties theorists who like to work with imaginary rather than real physical phenomena because with the first they can always rearrange them according to their preferences, while with the second they have to work hard and show talent to unravel them.
In our universe everything is created with design and purpose. The existence of such unnatural objects as black holes is pointless and demonstrates only the stupidity and vanity of pseudo science.

In the universe exist objects with strong gravitational effects, but they are not black holes and work on an entirely different principle, which excludes singularities and paradoxes. These objects do not swallow matter and energy. It seems to me that these popular dark objects like black holesi and dark matter and energy are rather affinity to the occultism than to the truth and serious reputable science.
viko_mx
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2015
Such dark ideas and theories suit more to a pagan oracles than to serious scientists.
Dethe
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2015
These objects do not swallow matter and energy
OK, but why? I don't doubt that if it turns out, that the black holes really don't exist in their classical sense, then everyone will call: "You see, I told you so!" After wit is every body's wit, but I'm missing the rational reasoning of this stance. Currently the black holes are extrapolation of behavior of massive bodies, which tend to collect matter from their neighborhood - actually the more, the more massive they are. So why the very massive and dense black holes should behave differently? The correct answer is not so trivial.
Job001
5 / 5 (1) Apr 09, 2015
Information ceases to exist when it cannot be processed.
Scientifically, the observer, the information processor, cannot be ignored.
To forgo the observer is to forgo science.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.