Hawking team updates soft hair theory to help solve black hole information paradox

June 9, 2016 by Bob Yirka report
Hawking, Perry, and Strominger suggest that black holes might have “soft hair,” low-energy quantum excitations that release information when the black hole evaporates. Credit: APS/Alan Stonebraker

(Phys.org)—Stephen Hawking, along with Malcolm Perry and Andrew Strominger has updated his ideas regarding solving the black hole information paradox. In their new paper published in the journal Physical Review Letters, the trio outlines their ideas regarding soft hair and black holes and why they believe it may hold the key to resolving a problem that has been causing issues for physicists for over forty years.

The black hole paradox is relatively easy to understand— theoretically suck in everything around them, including light, causing information to be lost, forever. But back in the 70's Hawking and colleagues discovered that some information escapes—it is now known as Hawking radiation—but the information that escapes is not enough to describe everything that was eaten by a given black hole, so, the question remains, what happens to the rest of the information when the black hole dies?

Trying to solve this paradox has proven to be much more difficult. But, this past January, progress was made, Hawking, Perry and Strominger proposed a possible solution to the paradox, a theory based on what they called soft hair—but not everyone was convinced. The idea behind the theory is that quantum excitations known as soft hairs form a halo around a black hole, holding the information for the things that were consumed. The team came to conclude this was possible by identifying two problems with the assumptions that were made back in the 70's, namely that the vacuum around black holes is unique and that black holes had no "hair."

After posting their paper on the preprint server arXiv, in January, critics were wary of the theory because it failed to explain how it was that information could be exchanged between the black hole and the soft hair. In this new paper, the trio still has not addressed this problem completely, but they have reworked the math and have found stronger evidence for the existence of soft hairs—if they can do the same for gravity, and show that all of the information is held in the soft hairs, rather than just some, it should greatly increase the chances that one day the paradox will be solved once and for, offering relief for those who feared that the might one day lead to having to toss out some of the most cherished theories in physics.

Explore further: Physicists split on ideas expressed in Hawking's latest black hole paper

More information: Stephen W. Hawking et al. Soft Hair on Black Holes, Physical Review Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.231301

ABSTRACT
It has recently been shown that Bondi–van der Burg–Metzner–Sachs supertranslation symmetries imply an infinite number of conservation laws for all gravitational theories in asymptotically Minkowskian spacetimes. These laws require black holes to carry a large amount of soft (i.e., zero-energy) supertranslation hair. The presence of a Maxwell field similarly implies soft electric hair. This Letter gives an explicit description of soft hair in terms of soft gravitons or photons on the black hole horizon, and shows that complete information about their quantum state is stored on a holographic plate at the future boundary of the horizon. Charge conservation is used to give an infinite number of exact relations between the evaporation products of black holes which have different soft hair but are otherwise identical. It is further argued that soft hair which is spatially localized to much less than a Planck length cannot be excited in a physically realizable process, giving an effective number of soft degrees of freedom proportional to the horizon area in Planck units.

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. ...

The hot problem of black hole firewalls

April 14, 2016

For the last four years, physicists studying the mathematical underpinnings of black holes have been wrestling with a strange idea: that black holes contain a region known as a "firewall," which utterly annihilates matter ...

Recommended for you

Carefully crafted light pulses control neuron activity

November 17, 2017

Specially tailored, ultrafast pulses of light can trigger neurons to fire and could one day help patients with light-sensitive circadian or mood problems, according to a new study in mice at the University of Illinois.

Strain-free epitaxy of germanium film on mica

November 17, 2017

Germanium, an elemental semiconductor, was the material of choice in the early history of electronic devices, before it was largely replaced by silicon. But due to its high charge carrier mobility—higher than silicon by ...

New imaging technique peers inside living cells

November 16, 2017

To undergo high-resolution imaging, cells often must be sliced and diced, dehydrated, painted with toxic stains, or embedded in resin. For cells, the result is certain death.

The stacked color sensor

November 16, 2017

Red-sensitive, blue-sensitive and green-sensitive color sensors stacked on top of each other instead of being lined up in a mosaic pattern – this principle could allow image sensors with unprecedented resolution and sensitivity ...

108 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

fittingrrp
1.8 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2016
Still too confusing
ogg_ogg
1.9 / 5 (15) Jun 09, 2016
yeah, I really don't buy the paradox. That is, I haven't figured out why the Conservation of Information is accepted as true. In a universe in which the microstate is probabilistically random, I assume that information is asymptotically lost as t→∞. But people far smarter and more knowledgeable than I say it ain't so. I'm just not convinced. Seems to me this is wrapped into the arrow of time, and they really can't explain that. (not to mention the problem with the entropy of the initial microstate)
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (20) Jun 09, 2016
Hey, let's just keep adding new speculations about things claimed to be smaller than a Planck length onto older speculations which positioned the universe's weakest force as its dominant force.
JimD
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 09, 2016
Oh wait... Here's an idea... The soft hairs get their information from the black hole through ten-dimensional hair follicles. It's all hidden in the math... lol!
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (22) Jun 09, 2016
in the journal Physical Review Letters, the trio outlines their ideas regarding soft hair and black holes and why they believe

Fanciful imaginings of mathematicians from the leader in the pseudosciences, PRL.

"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén

The paradox is how this nonsense became science.

offering relief for those who feared that the paradox might one day lead to having to toss out some of the most cherished theories in physics.

LOL, it's astounding how these metaphysicists get away with this fraud against science. There is relief from those who feared they'd lose their jobs and be shown what they really are, accedemia fraudsters.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (20) Jun 10, 2016
HannesAlfven with obverse satire
... onto older speculations which positioned the universe's weakest force as its dominant force
What ???

Gravity is by far the most dominant re orbits, galaxies, clusters etc no problem, the answer is very easy which is Totally ignored by the EU pseudoscience lobby

ie. Gravity hasn't polarity whereas Electromangnetic/Electric (EM) do & thus sums easily !

Its WHY Sol's EM doesnt affect Earth's orbit & WHY Sol's EM also unmeasurable within Earth's EM field ie At or near surface - why don't the EU mob know or even think on it ?

That's main issue by far & an aspect covered well by Gauss, learn there are no magnetic monopoles as in equivalent to naked charge & since naked charges drawn to unlike they sum !
https://en.wikipe...ss's_law

None of this happens with Gravity, even the very basic math confirms Gravity's dominance !

I've seen you & cantdrive85 dance around this for years yet Fail to comprehend it, why ?
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 10, 2016
That is, I haven't figured out why the Conservation of Information is accepted as true. In a universe in which the microstate is probabilistically random

Here's a good stab at explaining this:
http://van.physic...id=24045

Especially the third followup question at the bottom ofthe page is an interesting one
sascoflame
1.5 / 5 (15) Jun 10, 2016
This is now and always has been a phony issue. It is based on the religious belief that we live in a perfectly predictive mechanistic universe. That is that it is possible to perfectly know everything that is happening now and therefore it is possible to know everything that has ever happened and everything that will ever happen. There are, any number of reasons that this idea is just plain stupid but it is accepted as an article of religious faith by many. The easiest why to show this: 1. Heisenberg uncertainty principle means that we cannot know everything that is happening now. 2. No matter how you twist and twist and turn some things are either random or unpredictable according to the quantum theory. 3. The three body problem means that it is impossible to predict the exact behavior of every piece of matter under the influence of gravity for all any great enough length of time.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 10, 2016
It is based on the religious belief that we live in a perfectly predictive mechanistic universe.

The notion of a mechanistic universe went out the window in the 1920's (with the first papers about quantum mechanics and Heisenberg Uncertainty later that decade) and has been dead ever since.

but it is accepted as an article of religious faith by many

More precisely: it is accepted by those who believe in gods/fate. No one else (least of all scientists) does so.

However, that randomness is part of the universe is not at odds with the notion of conservation laws (conservation of energy, conservation of information, etc. )
Nik_2213
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 10, 2016
I would have thought the issue is moot as black holes are never truly isolated, so their event horizon has a 'hot' fringe which would scramble incoming...

But I'm far to old to comprehend this stuff !!
epoxy
Jun 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ryan1981
1 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2016
This makes me wonder what the definition of information is. If the information on my hard disk is irreparably "damaged" it is lost to me, but not to the universe?
LifeBasedLogic
Jun 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (17) Jun 10, 2016
This makes me wonder what the definition of information is. If the information on my hard disk is irreparably "damaged" it is lost to me, but not to the universe?

I think you're mixing up the definitions of "information" and "meaning".
The letter-combination "nynus" and "sunny" have the same information value as per the definition of entropy in information theory
https://en.wikipe...n_theory
NB that 'entropy' in information theory is NOT the same as entropy in thermodynamics...even though they share a number of striking similarities...(it's why it got that label in the first place)
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 10, 2016
Also note that "sunny" and "nynus" can have the same *meaning* depending on what encryption scheme you use (e.g. none for the first word and a certain letter rearrangement scheme for the second). This is why encryption doesn't count as adding information value (which is counter-intuitive)

Funnily enough this is the reason why quantum teleportation (which is instantaneous) cannot be used for classical information transmission because classical information transmission is limited to the speed of light. However quantum telelportation CAN be used for encryption schemes because encryption is NOT classical information transmission and therefore not limited to the speed of light.
kriminy
1 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2016
So much for the no-hair theorem. I guess that was never a theorem, or never proved in fact:

https://en.wikipe..._theorem
ursiny33
1 / 5 (9) Jun 10, 2016
Well if black holes did not exist and the CCM was quantum particle mass made up of the quantum constructions of electrons and positrons in a plasma state bonded magnetically in magnetic compression between those opposite charges, produced by high velocity kinetic collisions of neutrons and protons in orbit around the mass all the information would be contained and not sent to another dimension, all that would be needed to retrieve the information would be for the mass to cool off, and the gravity held electron magnetic field around the CCM mechanically induct that mass back into neutrons , as a mechanical magnetic function in charged particle construction of quantum constructions into hydrogen atom based quantum constructions because electrons and positrons are the quantum building blocks of neutrons,protons and hydrogen atoms, as charged constructions
Protoplasmix
4.2 / 5 (13) Jun 10, 2016
ie. Gravity hasn't polarity whereas Electromangnetic/Electric (EM) do & thus sums easily !
uh, actually gravitational waves are polarized; it's a changing quadrupole moment (instead of dipole as with EM), so there are two polarizations rotated 45º from each other (instead of 90º as for EM) called h_+ and h_x (read as "h_plus" and "h_cross"). Did you mean positive/negative electric charge? Polarity refers to the relative orientation of poles, as with the direction of the magnetic and/or electric fields for EM. For gravity it depends on the source, e.g., for two compact masses in a circular orbit, the plane of polarization will rotate at twice the rate of the orbital period.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (16) Jun 10, 2016
LifeBasedLogic/DavidW claims
Life is most important in life is true, but people here posting, such as Mike_Massen and antialias_physorg publicy deny the most important truth in life as true
What are you on about, you write as if you've a history of recreational drug abuse :/

What does phrase "Life is most important in life" actually mean ?

Life's everywhere on Earth, not so outside our planet eg moon, venus, space, Sol, so what aspect important to what life & how related ?

In all that where life grabs e- from other life ie stealing energy "Eat & be Eaten" in ALL of nature, where is the specific "important" aspect you claim re life ?

Spit it out man !

LifeBasedLogic/DavidW says
Without personally and publicly accepting what is most important in conversation people cannot make a completely truthful point on anything. No paradox there
This is not a "conversation" chat channel, these is place for comments hopefully re article.

Please clarify ?
Seeker2
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2016
ie. Gravity hasn't polarity whereas Electromangnetic/Electric (EM) do & thus sums easily !
uh, actually gravitational waves are polarized; ...
Gravitational waves are density waves in the vacuum pressure. Gravity is a gradient in the vacuum pressure. Movement through the vacuum naturally produces a wave, but not normally significant unless they're from orbiting black holes, for instance. So normally the vacuum pressure gradient is waiting on you when you get there so effectively gravity is instantaneous. I would down vote gravitons as having anything to do with the force of gravity.
Seeker2
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 11, 2016
Can anyone help me out here? Is there information in pure ice? What happens to this info when the ice melts? Actually the melting process leaves currents in the melt so I guess you could say the info is not lost.
epoxy
Jun 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jun 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (17) Jun 11, 2016
Protoplasmix says
ie. Gravity hasn't polarity whereas Electromangnetic/Electric (EM) do & thus sums easily !
uh, actually gravitational waves are polarized
Different issue, didnt mention waves or any issue of propagation at all, please review my post.

ie I was referring to forces in context on magnetic/electric polarity ie attraction vs repulsion. My point is about force summing in reference to the EU lobby refusing to appreciate why gravity is the dominant force because there's Nil means repulsion. in that Eg integration, gravity wins.

Though thanks for dissertation re your interest in gravity wave polarisation. Not presently my area of interest, though the perception you've re "quadrapole" has me intrigued, do you have a specific reference in mind ?

ie. A Scientific Paper propounding the view with relevant math, perhaps a connection with Ligo Experimental Method design re instrumentation resolution & correlated or connected with observations made ?
Phys1
4 / 5 (16) Jun 11, 2016
ie. Gravity hasn't polarity whereas Electromangnetic/Electric (EM) do & thus sums easily !
uh, actually gravitational waves are polarized;

You are both right.
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (10) Jun 11, 2016
Different issue, didnt mention waves or any issue of propagation at all, please review my post.
Sort of, you mentioned polarity (the property of having poles or being polar), so heed the terms of the maths.
ie. A Scientific Paper propounding the [quadrupole] view with relevant math, perhaps
Quadrupole
Einstein's quadrupole formula
Gravitational wave
You are both right.
Sort of, "Gravity hasn't polarity" sounds (to me) outmoded both semantically and especially mathematically. But I did find this from two decades ago on a NASA page – http://image.gsfc...058.html – so maybe I'm being too nitpicky in my own effort to understand everything. I still think there's a better (more proper) way to say the point Mike was making.
ursiny33
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2016
Gravity depends on concentrated mass for its existence ,its never greater than the mass that's responsible for its existence, electrical charged particles all constructions have a dominant positive charge and a minor negative charge, or a dominant negative charge and minor positive charge by its construction quantum mass the only particle construction of quantum mass with an equal charge of positive and negative is a photon
ursiny33
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2016
Gravity is not greater than the sum of its magnetically bonded mass in magnetic compression , where there's no space empty for uncertainly
ursiny33
1 / 5 (5) Jun 11, 2016
Gravity is not a force on to itself, its dependent on charged particle mass for its existence
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 11, 2016
Galactic Dynamics Textbook Author Admits No Strong Scientific Reason to Believe that Gravity Dominates at Galactic Scales

Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility
Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones (p10, 2013)

"Combing through the library, I found a well-known textbook on galactic dynamics where the authors state:

'It is worth remembering that all of the discussion so far has been based on the premise that Newtonian gravity and general relativity are correct on large scales. In fact, there is little or no direct evidence that conventional theories of gravity are correct on scales much larger than a light year or so. Newtonian gravity works extremely well on scales of 10^12 meters, the solar system (...) It is principally the elegance of general relativity and its success in solar system tests that lead us to the bold extrapolation to scales 10^19 - 10^24 meters ... [3]'"

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 11, 2016
(cont'd, Alexander Unzicker now speaking ...)

"... Wow! Fancy that. Two leading experts claim that the law of gravity has been well tested in our solar system only -- a tiny fraction of the universe that corresponds to a single snowflake in all of Greenland. Scientists seem drawn to the 'elegance' of the theory, which is not really a scientific criterion. I often confront physicists and astronomers with this quote. Usually they shrug and reply airily, 'That is indeed true, but why shouldn't the law of gravity be valid? So far, there is nothing better to replace it.'"

(the quoted textbook ...)

[3] J. Binney and S. Tremaine, S. Galactic Dynamics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), 635.

This quote is for Mike_Masson above ... Re: "Gravity is by far the most dominant re orbits, galaxies, clusters etc no problem ..."
ursiny33
1 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2016
In a interstellar gas cloud , clumps of matter are constructed magnetically between atoms , hydrogen atoms have a dominant positive quantum mass over its negative mass, iron atoms have a dominant quantum negative mass , those are attracted magnetically from their different charged make up to magnetic cluster together and magnetically cluster with other atom cluster charges, gravity does not start that cycle its a product off its construction
Benni
1.5 / 5 (22) Jun 11, 2016
This makes me wonder what the definition of information is. If the information on my hard disk is irreparably "damaged" it is lost to me, but not to the universe?


I think you're mixing up the definitions of "information" and "meaning".
The letter-combination "nynus" and "sunny" have the same information value as per the definition of entropy in information theory........NB that 'entropy' in information theory is NOT the same as entropy in thermodynamics...even though they share a number of striking similarities...(it's why it got that label in the first place)


Just the kind of absurdity of an explanation as one could expect coming from someone with a degree in Biology. Study Special Relativity instead of the makeshift drivel that shows up at your favorite Funny Farm Pseudo-science sites.

The concept of INFORMATION is just one thing & nothing else, ENERGY (electro-magnetism, photons).

Phys1
4 / 5 (15) Jun 11, 2016
(cont'd, Alexander Unzicker now speaking ...)

"... Wow! Fancy that. Two leading experts claim that the law of gravity has been well tested in our solar system only "

The picture below shows that the dynamics of elliptical galaxies agrees with Newton predictions for distances up to 25.000 lightyears.
http://www.keckob..._800.png
ursiny33
1 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2016
Ben I the laws of thermodynamics,and entropy deal with energy classified as information, that energy can not be destroyed but converted
Benni
1.7 / 5 (22) Jun 11, 2016
Ben I the laws of thermodynamics,and entropy deal with energy classified as information, that energy can not be destroyed but converted


......a better word for "converted" is TRANSFORMED.

Energy & Mass are defined as the Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle as Einstein laid out in Special Relativity defined in his famous equation as: E=mc²

The Mass/Energy Equivalence Principle expressly demands niether ENERGY nor MASS can be lost into oblivion, OR there is no EQUIVALENCE.

The Pop-Sci manner BHs have been defined these days is that there exists INFINITE gravity at the surface of a BH which renders photons incapable of reaching Escape Velocity & thus are forever trapped within the mass of the BH never to be seen again, in other words INFORMATION LOSS. Such a concept of IL is so absurd that no serious Professional in the field of Nuclear Physics believes it is possible to have infinite gravity on a stellar body that has the finite mass as all BHs are known to have.
ursiny33
1 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2016
The information paradox,that the physicists have in there black hole model , for 40 years means there model is wrong, ,that black holes do not exist, that they have to be a quantum particle mass of charged quantum particle constructions, positrons and electrons , if two neutron stars are in a high velocity collision those neutrons will be broken apart into positrons and electrons ,and build a charged particle mass from those parts ,it will be 100 percent positrons and electrons bound magnetically in magnetic compression to each other, not a black hole
ursiny33
1 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2016
There's is zero mechanical possibility for an intact atom or a photon to reach the CCM, that mass has an environment surrounding it that is hotter than the biggest star core, when an atom approaches this environment its orbiting electrons will be stripped from the nucleus ,they will be suspended by the mass gravity in orbit around that mass ,constructing a magnetic field vessel around that mass, the neutrons and protons will fall towards the mass and enter a high velocity orbiting plasma field made of neutrons and protons in high velocity kinetic collisions coming apart into positrons and electrons that become plasma raining down out of the category 99999 neutron storm onto the mass by its gravity growing the mass
ursiny33
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2016
Its like a cosmic particle accelerator bigger than CERN billions of billions of times
Benni
1.8 / 5 (24) Jun 11, 2016
The information paradox,that the physicists have in there black hole model , for 40 years means there model is wrong


.......right on the money ursiny, it's the reason Hawking has had to do a lot of backtracking & conjured up this whole Hawking Radiation hypothesis, he knew he was up against Einstein on this Information Loss scenario, just as Schwarzschild was when he was advised by Einstein that he cannot mathematically use his Gravity Field Equations to calculate the possibility of BHs as small as a SINGULARITY.

Anyone well versed in Einstein's SR & GR fully understands the absolute silliness behind the concept of a finite stellar having a well of infinite gravity. Nothing finite can contain something described as infinite. Some of the genius mathematicians who show up here think there is a way to create something infinite out of something finite, all the same ones also have never seen a Differential Equation in Einstein's SR or GR they could follow.

epoxy
Jun 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2016
Gravity is not a force on to itself, its dependent on charged particle mass for its existence
It's dependent on displaced vacuum pressure leading to less back pressure in regions of more matter.
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (16) Jun 12, 2016
Protoplasmix (Px) oddly says
.. "Gravity hasn't polarity" sounds (to me) outmoded both semantically and especially mathematically
Taking words out of a sentence sullying context, can claim anything in attempt to cast aspersion/prejudice upon author, was that your intent ?

In math at its simplest, polarity has a meaning ie re + & -, expanding to Physics you can cover electro-magnetics but, even then its clear my sentence directly addresses EU & sets up a counter for their reply ;-)

ie Directed at them who appear very confused

I didnt expect you'd miss that, please re-consider my intent re EU & the contextual value in a sentence, ie not useful to pull 3 narrow words out

Px says
so maybe I'm being too nitpicky...
Hrrm Weaving polarity into wave mode polarisations as if to refute point to EU is opposite.

Px says
.. better (more proper) way to say the point..
Define "proper" ? so over to you then re full comparable sentence to my vain attempt please ?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (22) Jun 12, 2016
Benni confused
Just the kind of absurdity of an explanation as one could expect coming from someone with a degree in Biology
If you're obtusely referring to antialias_physorg's PhD in imaging as referring to aspect of biology then you are STILL wrong or else ?

You've been told before, not surprising many ignore you !

Benni at it again
.. instead of the makeshift drivel that shows up at your favorite Funny Farm Pseudo-science sites
Over years your posts by far criticize/attack the educated how does that improve discussions or enhance dialectic ?

Tell us how you're an Electrical Engineer (EE) then a Nuclear Engineer (NE) & why you've narrow focus on others claiming can't recognise "Differential Equation...they could follow" ?

You Don't write like any EE/NE I've ever worked with in my 40+yrs you're simple on technical issues, overwhelmingly bark facile criticism on misread qualifications of others.

Show us, Eg try to address the EU lobby re gravity ?
ursiny33
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 12, 2016
Your whole model is based on everything coming from one event the big bang ,you have not considered any other comparative model against it , single point theory, that space is just a bit older than charged particles and hydrogen atom based quantum constructions, are you even capable of conceiving a comparative model of even the opposite like a multi point model in a quantum particle dimension called space that's trillions upon trillions of years old, and our hydrogen atom based construction is just one many before us in an infinite dimension of space and the cosmic background radiation is not from the big bang of our construction but of other constructions before us in super deep space,
ursiny33
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 12, 2016
Copernicus had issues with the mathematicians model of his day, he had to set the kings of doctrine in their place
ursiny33
1.2 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2016
Benni I don't take it to heart, these are the certified thinkers and defenders of their single point religion, in quantum mechanical magnetic particle physics , particle physics can always use thinkers , mathematicians and physicists did not give man powered flight , bicycle mechanics did
ursiny33
1.4 / 5 (11) Jun 12, 2016
Its a great story , charged particles falling into the BH are cloning a new mass before singularity and leaking out thru radiation when it evaporates , or was he saying charged particles evaporate into radiation, and convert back into charged particles again , I guess in this class of single point theory that anything is possible in a universe made from nothing with no catalyst or parts to begin with out of the magic unicorn
epoxy
Jun 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2016
Per http://phys.org/n...les.html "In 10 quintillion years everything in the Universe will have either fallen into a black hole, or been flung out on an escape trajectory. And then those black holes will slowly evaporate over time, as predicted by Stephen Hawking." My guess is by this time the black hole splits apart and opens up a new big bang before they ever have time to evaporate.
epoxy
Jun 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2016
My guess is by the time everything is collected into one black hole it becomes unstable and splits apart and opens up a new big bang before they ever have time to evaporate.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...rk.html#
Seeker2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2016
My guess is by the time everything is collected into one black hole it becomes unstable and splits apart and opens up...
Actually a pretty good bet since at high temperatures the quark-gluon soup becomes almost a perfect liquid.
epoxy
Jun 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jun 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2016
The trick of supertranslations is in fact, every density gradient enables the passing of both transverse, both longitudinal waves.
Don't forget the spherical harmonics.
epoxy
Jun 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
epoxy
Jun 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2016
Don't forget the spherical harmonics.
These could be related to the circles detected in the CMB claimed by Roger Penrose.
epoxy
Jun 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ursiny33
1.4 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2016
the 90 billion light year across construction we are in, and at the speed of light quantum hydrogen atom based construction should not have a distances greater than 27.4 billion light years across , conclusions are that space has expanded 3. Something faster than light, from measurements of the red shift, in the light spectrum, that would be convincing evidence if that was the only mechanical possibility of those conclusions , but if our construction came from a like construction but much older and multiple clusters of galaxies tracked each other into deep space across in a multi billion light year arch with a dozen billion year intervals between those clusters and every galaxy in those cluster had the quantum particle mass CCM converted back into neutrons to mechanically produce galaxy expansion as the seeds of creation that can account for those distances in 13.7 billion years a mechanical possibility in particle physics
ursiny33
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2016
So your written in stone fiery laws of single point creation, from the mountain top , can easily be said to be written clay, if there is a possible mechanical explanation over than the premise
Phys1
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 12, 2016
Different issue, didnt mention waves or any issue of propagation at all, please review my post.
Sort of, you mentioned polarity (the property of having poles or being polar), so heed the terms of the maths.
ie. A Scientific Paper propounding the [quadrupole] view with relevant math, perhaps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole – so maybe I'm being too nitpicky in my own effort to understand everything. I still think there's a better (more proper) way to say the point Mike was making.

Gravity has no polarity and gravitational waves do have polarisation.
Chris_Reeve
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 12, 2016
Re: "The picture below shows that the dynamics of elliptical galaxies agrees with Newton predictions for distances up to 25.000 lightyears."

Try calculating the gravitational force between two typically adjacent stars. Have you done this yet?

The Weakest Force - Gravity
https://plus.goog...yeVEv7Hc
Phys1
4.1 / 5 (13) Jun 12, 2016
If you want to make a point that gravity is weak, conceded.
It is just the right strength to explain the orbits of stars up to 25.000 ly from Sgr A*.
ursiny33
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2016
Phys1 it would be hard to conceive a neutron star having an internal path electron magnetic field from its internal constructions of neutrons and quantum plasma of positrons and electrons that's countering the repulsion forces of that collection of like charged neutrons, it does have an outer crust of iron atoms imprinted on its surface, that are probably aligned in polarity with its poles and magnetic field is a surface field of magnetic lines of force exchanged on those iron atoms arc out in space and returning and exiting at those poles and that the gravity of the mass captures free electrons building a ever larger field in its life span
ursiny33
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2016
And if the neutron star collects to many electrons to exchange with iron atom electrons on a surface field it probably builds a secondary field that just orbits the mass by being held by gravity it could be dual field
Benni
1.9 / 5 (22) Jun 12, 2016
Over years your posts by far criticize/attack the educated how does that improve discussions or enhance dialectic ?


Muttering Mike, Please. I do not "criticize/attack the educated", it is you, Stumpy, Ira, Phys1, Imp9, Schneibo, Shavera, and a few other uneducated Pop-Sci nerds within that Rant Brigade that I come after.

Learn the difference between signing onto the latest fads of Pop-Sci culture & discover what Einstein really did write in his SR & GR, so knock it off with thinking you can be as knowledgeable about these sciences as someone who knows how to use the math of those sciences to earn a real paycheck as I do.
Protoplasmix
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 12, 2016
Define "proper" ? so over to you then re full comparable sentence to my vain attempt please ?
I'll try –

Of the following two statements,
"Gravity has no polarity," and
"Gravity has zero polarity,"
which is the more proper way to say it? [neither sounds correct to me – nothing to do with you or the EU, Mike]

Is there some proof for either statement? Like, "the gravitational force has no massless spin-2 field, no configuration or direction, no poles, no [spin-2] polarization states," or something along those lines? So much for unifying QM and GR, I guess.

It looks like the term 'polarity' has been used in a variety of ways in several disciplines that give it a restricted set of definitions which can then only be applied in an esoteric fashion. If your definition is restricted to something like, "having opposite poles," then yeah, gravity has no polarity. So let's relegate antigravity to forever science fiction while we're at it, shall we?
TechnoCreed
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2016
It looks like the term 'polarity' has been used in a variety of ways in several disciplines that give it a restricted set of definitions which can then only be applied in an esoteric fashion. If your definition is restricted to something like, "having opposite poles," then yeah, gravity has no polarity. So let's relegate antigravity to forever science fiction while we're at it, shall we?

The fact that we detected slightly out of shape, gravitons produced by a very special cosmic event does not allow us to say that gravity has polarity. Of course those gravitons were polarized but that is a whole different topic; One that can only be addressed in the context of gravitational waves. Gravity, the phenomenon in itself, has no polarity and saying otherwise can only be misleading.
Chris_Reeve
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 13, 2016
I love how neutron stars are spoken about as if they are possible ...
Seeker2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2016
So let's relegate antigravity to forever science fiction while we're at it, shall we?
Uh - no. Antigravity applies to antimatter-antimatter interactions only. Antimatter doesn't react gravitationally with its matter twins. But people will be searching for millennia trying to find an interaction. Good luck. Theory being matter has a higher energy density than the dark energy and antimatter a lower energy density. The lowest energy state of the U is when all antimatter is scattered as far apart from itself as possible, and when all matter is collected into one minimum sized group (black body).

Seeker2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2016
(black body).
Oops. Sorry bout that. You know what I mean. Pushing 80 real hard.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2016
I love how neutron stars are spoken about as if they are possible ...

I am glad that you are happy. Happiness has priority over understanding the cosmos.
Phys1
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2016
So let's relegate antigravity to forever science fiction while we're at it, shall we?

Yes.
Never say never, though :-) .
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2016
Why Neutron Stars are Impossible

Don Scott
http://www.electr...iagr.htm

"The concept of the 'neutron star' was a baseless invention. It was proposed because only such a dense material could make up a star that could stand those outrageously high rotation speeds.

But, one of the basic rules of nuclear chemistry is the 'zone of stability'. This is the observation that if we add neutrons to the nucleus of any atom, we need to add an almost proportional number of protons (and their accompanying electrons) to maintain a stable nucleus. In fact, it seems that when we consider all the natural elements (and the heavy man made elements as well), there is a requirement that in order to hold a group of neutrons together in a nucleus, a certain number of proton-electron pairs are required ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2016
(cont'd)

"... The stable nuclei of the lighter elements contain approximately equal numbers of neutrons and protons, a neutron/proton ratio of 1. The heavier nuclei contain a few more neutrons than protons, but the limit seems to be 1.5 neutrons per proton. Nuclei that differ significantly from this ratio SPONTANEOUSLY UNDERGO RADIOACTIVE TRANSFORMATIONS that tend to bring their compositions into or closer to this ratio.

Flying in the face of this fact, mainstream astrophysicists continue to postulate the existence of stars made up of solid material consisting only of neutrons, 'Neutronium'. This is yet one more example of Fairie Dust entities fantasized by astrophysicists to explain otherwise inexplicable observations ..."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2016
(cont'd)

"... A proton-free nucleus or 'charge free' atom made up of only neutrons has never been synthesized in any laboratory nor can it ever be. Lone neutrons decay into proton - electron pairs in less than 14 minutes; atom-like collections of two or more neutrons will fly apart almost instantaneously.

That astrophysicists feel free to postulate and then quickly accept as fact the existence of such preposterous entities provides deep insight into the present state of their science."
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 13, 2016
That astrophysicists feel free to postulate and then quickly accept as fact the existence of such preposterous entities provides deep insight into the present state of their science."

I have to take issue with Dr. Scott's statement, to suggest what astrophysicists are doing is science is offensive to real scientists.
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2016
The fact that we detected slightly out of shape, gravitons produced by a very special cosmic event does not allow us to say that gravity has polarity.
Huh? There was a direct detection of gravitational waves, not gravitons...
Gravity, the phenomenon in itself, has no polarity and saying otherwise can only be misleading.
Are you saying the vacuum polarization of empty space (from quantum mechanics) has no unified place in the empty space-time of general relativity? Despite the stress-energy tensor?

Are you saying polarity, "the property of having poles or being polar," doesn't apply to monopole, dipole, quadrupole, octupole, or any kind of multipole moment?

Are you saying a system with a changing mass quadrupole moment won't radiate polarized waves of – gravity, the phenomenon itself?
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2016
@CR
Your argument against neutron stars shows how little you understand.
All physicists know about the zone of stability and your argument will convince none.
You have to do better than this.
Don't let me encourage you on a mission to fail, however.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2016
@pp
Saying that gravity has no polarity in my opinion means that there is no source polarity. There are only positive sources. There can be no net multipole moment.
Chris_Reeve
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 13, 2016
Re: "All physicists know about the zone of stability and your argument will convince none."

The real question is whether or not they will persist even when the entire public understands. We'll get there, and we'll find out.
Chris_Reeve
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 13, 2016
Scientific Method Has Been Discarded by Cosmologists

The Cult of the Big Bang: Was There a Bang?
William C Mitchell
(p181)

"It seems that scientific method, that in essence consists of postulation based on the study of nature that is then verified by the results of controlled experimentation, has been discarded by cosmologists. It has been replaced by elaborate constructions that are said to have 'elegance,' apparently a preferred quality that has superseded scientific method. [Big Bang] cosmology, believed by many to be a sound scientific structure, is built on a foundation of very few hard facts."
TechnoCreed
3.8 / 5 (10) Jun 13, 2016
The fact that we detected slightly out of shape, gravitons produced by a very special cosmic event does not allow us to say that gravity has polarity.

Huh? There was a direct detection of gravitational waves, not gravitons...

Oh come on Proto, I know that those particles are still hypothetic. I know that you are literate enough not to dismiss the current paradigm, for the rest of the readers I will mention quantum mechanics. That a direct detection of gravitational waves strongly favors the existence of these particles that the world of physics is trying to constrain; just search for graviton on this paper ( The science team of this paper are not a bunch of idiots, they are the LIGO and VIRGO science collaboration. ) https://arxiv.org...41v2.pdf and to understand GW is to understand the hypothetical physics of gravitons. Physics that you basically outlined in this tread.

Phys1
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 13, 2016
Re: "All physicists know about the zone of stability and your argument will convince none."

The real question is whether or not they will persist even when the entire public understands. We'll get there, and we'll find out.

"The public understands"
Since when does "the public" understand neutron stars?
Are you hoping to get a mob to lynch the idea?
Go to Marseille, there are some hooligans that may be willing to help you if you supply them with a constant stream of beer.
Say "Chris Reeve", I spent enough time on this nonsense. Ciao.
Protoplasmix
4 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2016
There can be no net multipole moment.
uh-huh. Lucky for you my caps lock key doesn't work. Maybe this will help –
"What is the gravitational quadrupole moment? Can it change? (Please dumb it down for me)"
Maybe not...
Chris_Reeve
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 13, 2016
Re: "Since when does "the public" understand neutron stars?"

They only really NEED to know that neutronium has never and will never exist, based upon laboratory observations. It's very simple.
Protoplasmix
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2016
... not a bunch of idiots … Physics that you basically outlined in this tread.
The physics has a fascinating history that goes back over a hundred years. Tread loudly, and carry a small pole – erm, wait... something like that.
TechnoCreed
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 13, 2016
... not a bunch of idiots … Physics that you basically outlined in this tread.
The physics has a fascinating history that goes back over a hundred years. Tread loudly, and carry a small pole – erm, wait... something like that.

Eh, Watch out, you are on fire!
Ryan1981
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2016
I think you're mixing up the definitions of "information" and "meaning".
The letter-combination "nynus" and "sunny" have the same information value as per the definition of entropy in information theory
https://en.wikipe...n_theory
NB that 'entropy' in information theory is NOT the same as entropy in thermodynamics...even though they share a number of striking similarities...(it's why it got that label in the first place)


Thanks! This is very interesting.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2016
There can be no net multipole moment.
uh-huh. Lucky for you my caps lock key doesn't work. Maybe this will help –
https://van.physi...p?id=204
Maybe not...

My caps lock still works:
no NET multipole moment. NET.
Which of these 3 letters don't you understand?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (18) Jun 14, 2016
Hi Protoplasmix. :)

https://van.physi...p?id=204

Thanks for that link, mate. It supports my longstanding (and recent) observations re a-LIGO claim of 'quadrupole effects' gravitational 'event'.

As I too have been pointing out, the only 'g-waves' that might 'travel' that DISTANCE would be LONGITUDINAL Plane Wave type; transmitting to wider universe any changed gravitational well strength/gradient 'front' resulting from any mass-energy loss from the LOCAL SOURCE/FEATURE.

Any 'quadupole change' TRANSVERSE EFFECTS type gravitational 'wave' would QUICKLY FADE and be effectively constrained to LOCAL (within a light year?) volume; as these dissipate much more quickly than LONGITUDINAL ones (as your own reference also points out).

Hence my skepticism re recent a-LIGO claim of 'quadrupole effect detection' based on its 'quadrupole effects' setup; which could NOT have been affected by any 'quadrupole effects' from a Billion+ LYs away).

Cheers. :)
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (13) Jun 15, 2016
Protoplasmix (Px) offers
1. "Gravity has no polarity," OR
2. "Gravity has zero polarity,"
which is the more proper...
1st as 2nd implies quantification but, quantity tno relevant as gravity isnt a force as such.

Px says
neither sounds correct to me
Sure, as far as I see, mine closest to the textbook/scientific paper language

Px asks
Is there some proof for either..
No. These statements primarily descriptive class.

Px says
So much for unifying QM and GR..
Look up QM with SR where GR seems to "pop out", few youtube MIT/NYU/Perimeter Institute colloquium talks along with space-time now seriously viewed (in math) as mere emergent property

Px says
.. If your definition is restricted to something like, "having opposite poles," then yeah, gravity has no polarity
Not esoteric, not restricting, dealing with it head on, though you did provoke:-

3. "Concept of (Electro-dynamic like) poles not applicable to gravity as its not a force", howzat ?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (21) Jun 15, 2016
@CR
Your argument against neutron stars shows how little you understand.
it aint about understanding

its called http://rationalwi...h_gallop

Protoplasmix
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2016
[there can be] no NET multipole moment. NET.
Which of these 3 letters don't you understand?
The NET part, for a system producing gravitational radiation. With the "there can be" part you left out.
Protoplasmix
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2016
Not esoteric, not restricting, dealing with it head on, though you did provoke:-
If you think gravity is provocative, perhaps you wouldn't mind comparing the polarity of photons with that of gluons? How do you gauge that? Colorfully, I expect.
Phys1
4 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2016
[there can be] no NET multipole moment. NET.
Which of these 3 letters don't you understand?
The NET part, for a system producing gravitational radiation. With the "there can be" part you left out.

I mean pure multipole moment. There is always a monopole moment because gravity has no polarity.
Protoplasmix
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2016
I mean pure multipole moment. There is always a monopole moment because gravity has no polarity.
According to that logic an electron has no polarity since there's always an electric charge. The polarity depends on the source. The polarity of gravity is different from that of electromagnetism. What's not "pure" about a changing mass quadrupole moment?
Protoplasmix
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 15, 2016
A 1/5(1) for "how do you gauge that?" Tough crowd.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (12) Jun 16, 2016
Protoplasmix asks
If you think gravity is provocative, perhaps you wouldn't mind comparing the polarity of photons with that of gluons?
Not what I was alluding to at all. Please take another peek at my post & I clarify, I was provoked by your opinion to offer a third description in respect of gravity & issue of polarity:-
3. Concept of (Electro-dynamic like) poles not applicable to gravity as its not a force

Since you voice no objection at all, then sensible you think its correct in line with your current understanding of the subject, is that an appropriate inference ?

Protoplasmix & play on words
How do you gauge that? Colorfully, I expect
Yes nice - for here :-) Audience may not know you refer to
https://en.wikipe...e_theory

fwiw
For sincere Physics researchers keenly focused on learning (ie not facile argument) to understand where theoretical Physics is heading, this has positive approach
https://www.youtu...BuHszyD8
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2016
I mean pure multipole moment. There is always a monopole moment because gravity has no polarity.
According to that logic an electron has no polarity since there's always an electric charge. The polarity depends on the source. The polarity of gravity is different from that of electromagnetism. What's not "pure" about a changing mass quadrupole moment?

Electromagnetism has polarity, so pure electric multipoles can occur.
BiteMe
Jun 16, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (13) Jun 17, 2016
BiteMe offers
..Lexical analysis on this thread suggests that benni might just be antigoracle. That would figure. It's pretty hard to find someone else that can do maths yet remains stunningly ignorant of...well, everything
Fwiw: Been running script for ages & includes post timing especially in response to any posts made directed at content misconstrued by nicks to point to them ie The classic set correspondence & yes there are multiple nicks from the same plods. In the case of Benni, for me isnt (yet) weight to connect it with antigoracle, both obtuse but, dissimilar styles

Overwhelmingly noticeable pattern & code not needed, is rapidity & proclivity to puerile insult when challenged & especially so when they're caught bullying ie Personal attacks purely to pothers down when they have no knowledge of the subject & can't comprehend basi logic & to save face in defense, claim their 14yr grand-daughter can read Scientific Papers they even refuse to link to :-)
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 17, 2016
claim their 14yr grand-daughter can read Scientific Papers they even refuse to link to :-)
@pachinko
had you actually taken the steps you yourself requested that i make (as in the logical path to demonstrate where claim 1 lead to claim x) you would not be continuing to cross-post your own failure to the rest of the world

you asked me to do it, but then refused to actually walk through the steps

that indicated that you finally remembered the study which indicated you blatantly lied but refused to take the steps to save face - that is in black and white in your own words, pachinko

also note:
just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean it makes sense to everyone else, so learn to communicate more clearly without your blatant murder of syntax and perhaps you might be able to comprehend where you lost the logical train of thought
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (13) Jun 18, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS) says
@pachinko
What is it, an insult bully term ?

Why demean & disrespect people's names/nicks ?

CS claims
..had you actually taken the steps you yourself requested
Wrong !

I challenge your extraordinary claim, show how you go from
http://arxiv.org/...53v2.pdf (label it P1)

to your "THz radiation is harmless" (label it C1) & "the paper proves THz is harmless" (label it C2).

None of these make *any* sense re P1

You Fail in *ANY* Physics logic going from P1 to either C1 or C2 - not one, nada, zero, zilch !

You claimed P1 is "rigorous", how so, badly misread ?
NO Empirical Evidence, not even basic design in bio Experimental Method ?

Instead you say a new (mythical) paper (label it P2) claiming your 14 yr grand-daughter understood despite nil education in ElectroMagnetics Physics & microbiology but, REFUSE to link to P2, why is that please when its direct ?

You misread so often with utterly Massive comprehension Gaffs !
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 26, 2016
@Captain Stumpy
In reference to my last post

I'm reminding you again you've made huge error re P1 to get C1/C2
ie Making false claims when you've NO knowledge of the subject for which the paper covers

You come across as a supremely unintelligent bully & coward of the worst kind ignoring the Audience leaving dumb unsupportable claims that's not just Scientific Misconduct but public Negligence !

You Refuse to admit you've misled readers & forgetting posts are locked & can only be deleted by admins :/

You show no respect for those that come later, they may even be harmed by your huge failures of logic stemming from lack of; education, training & experience on the subject !

Unlike you, I've studied THz radiation as part of qualifications in Food Science/Microbiology re alternative sterilizing methods !

I've read all the papers you claim are relevant but, not one has necessary "Scope of Work" !

Please man up apologise for ugly misleading Gaffs ie P1/C1 & others ?
Seeker2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 06, 2016
So let's relegate antigravity to forever science fiction while we're at it, shall we?
Yes but there's a caveat. Forget what I said before. Matter is more gravitational than antimatter. That is because matter displaces more vacuum than antimatter. The vacuum back pressure in regions of matter is then less than that in similar regions of antimatter, so the gradient of vacuum pressure between regions of matter and regions of the vacuum without matter is greater. So theoretically everything will be collected into one super-size black hole before antimatter begins to be collected. Once it begins to collect with matter then the fireworks really get started.

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.