Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Black Holes Don't Trap Information Forever

Posted by Soulskill on Fri May 16, 2008 12:11 AM
from the duh-it-wants-to-be-free dept.
sciencehabit writes "New calculations suggest that black holes are not a one-way street. Anything that falls into them may eventually come out. The findings lend important support to quantum gravity, but fly in the face of Einsteinian relativity. They also support Stephen Hawking's reluctant admission that information couldn't be destroyed by black holes. Penn State researcher Ahbay Ashtekar was quoted saying, 'Once we realized that the notion of space-time as a continuum is only an approximation of reality, it became clear to us that singularities are merely artifacts of our insistence that space-time should be described as a continuum.' Let the physics infighting begin."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Steven Hawking Loses Bet On Black Holes? 477 comments
st1d writes "Looks like Steven Hawking might have to pay up on an old bet regarding black holes - seems his idea about them destroying information wasn't quite living up to his expectations: 'The about-turn might cost Hawking, a physicist at the University of Cambridge, an encyclopaedia because of a bet he made in 1997. More importantly, it might solve one of the long-standing puzzles in modern physics.' He's due to make a formal announcement July 21."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Oh great... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cryacin (657549) on Friday May 16 2008, @12:15AM (#23428836)
    So I can't even wipe my drives by throwing them into a black hole?!? Grumble... (fires up microwave)
  • pretty continua (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2008, @12:16AM (#23428850)
    Continua are so much prettier mathematically though. Couldn't quantisation just be an artifact of a closed universe i.e. standing wave modes in a finitely sized continuum ? Quantum theory is so damn *ugly* compared to GR and its extensions (Kaluza-Klein, Einstein-Cartan). Sigh.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2008, @12:23AM (#23428900)
      Its just that the simulator for this universe has a cell-size, so anything below a plank length is just being approximated to speed up the calculations.
    • by symbolset (646467) on Friday May 16 2008, @01:04AM (#23429146) Journal

      The quantum unit of information is a "ficton".

      The rest of the jokes write themselves.

        • No (Score:5, Insightful)

          by symbolset (646467) on Friday May 16 2008, @01:45AM (#23429376) Journal

          Well, actually, the quantum unit of information is a bit.

          No, the binary quantum unit of information is a bit. A ficton is several orders of magnitude "smaller" than that. A bit can be true or false. A light that's on or off. A ficton is a value that represents the smallest possible division of "possibly true". The universe is not binary at a very fine scale. Things fade in and out of frame with increasing and decreasing probability in the present moment. It's only when the arrow of entropy has passed and the frame is set that a thing was or was not, from our point of view.

        • by Vectronic (1221470) on Friday May 16 2008, @01:48AM (#23429392)
          is a bit what?... damnit man, finish your sentences! /kidding
    • Don't worry.

      This too will be shown to just be an approximation which doesn't actually reflect how the universe works.

      That's all physics is in the end.
    • by timeOday (582209) on Friday May 16 2008, @01:33AM (#23429302)

      Continua are so much prettier mathematically though
      I can see you're not a computer scientist! Give me finite discrete quantities any day :)
    • Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pclminion (145572) on Friday May 16 2008, @01:47AM (#23429386)
      Just because we haven't figured out the beautiful way to describe it doesn't mean it's not beautiful. I think both GR and QM are inherently beautiful for revealing to us that the universe really doesn't work at all in the way we think it does. We're too large to experience everyday quantum effects, too small for relativistic effects. We live in the boring middle. Whether the math is beautiful or not, the reality certainly is.
  • by LeafOnTheWind (1066228) on Friday May 16 2008, @12:18AM (#23428862)

    Once we realized that the notion of space-time as a continuum is only an approximation of reality, it became clear to us that singularities are merely artifacts of our insistence that space-time should be described as a continuum.
    I already discovered this during a wild acid trip 30 years ago. Man, the space time continuum is just an illusion - it's all about the singularities. When will The Man start listening and give me my Nobel Prize.
  • Come out again?! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ink_13 (675938) <erloganNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday May 16 2008, @12:23AM (#23428902)
    I was under the impression that due to the relativistic effects, stuff (photons, matter, information, whatever) wasn't so much destroyed by a black hole as indefinitely delayed, owing to the massive bending of space-time by the singularity. Or do they mean by "eventually" what I mean: it might eventually come out, but the time it takes approaches infinity.
  • Wow, I can't wait to see how the writers of The Big Bang Theory will use this new theory to move Leonard's and Penny's love story along. Maybe Sheldon will make an oblique reference to it?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2008, @12:30AM (#23428952)
    Does that mean that there's the slightest probability to unsee goatse and live a normal life again?
  • LHC (Score:5, Funny)

    by ViX44 (893232) on Friday May 16 2008, @12:38AM (#23429010)
    It is a pity that, after they fire up the Large Hadron Collider, we won't survive to hear Hawking's reluctant admission that tiny black holes don't evaporate.
  • by martinX (672498) on Friday May 16 2008, @12:44AM (#23429056)
    Great. First I learn Newton is only an approximation, atomic theory is only an approximation, Gas *laws* are an approximation and now even Einstein (who I can't understand anyway) is only an approximation as well.

    Will the real reality please reveal itself!
    • In 1687, Isaac Newton wrote is Principia, which defined about half of calculus, and all of Newtonian physics - defining laws of both gravity, and inertia. It is understandable, then with no understanding of quantum mechanics at all, that he did not explicitly mention quantum monkeys at all.

      Maxwell then went on to explain Ether as a medium through which light traveled in 1878, later being disproved in 1881 by Michelson, and laying the groundwork for the discovery of quantum monkeys though the discovery of constant velocity light.

      This was established as mathematically sound in Einstein's theory of special relativity in 1905. General relativity, which explained gravitational effects on light and particles/waves moving fractionally close to the speed of light, was finally established in 1915 by Hilbert and Einstein, surprisingly without mention of quantum monkeys, despite all indications.

      Because of this work, as well as the basics of quantum mechanics established by Einstein, various scientists were able to find the six quarks: Up, Down, Top, Bottom, Charmed and Strange, the last (top) only having been confirmed in a laboratory in 1995. Strangely, however, none of the various experiments which identified quarks also identified quantum monkeys, which would have been readily observable through their quantum-picking-fleas-off-other-quantum-monkey gatherings.

      The first of these discoveries, in the early 1960s made possible a formalization of a unified model in 1970-73 of four fundamental forces, three of which can be unified mathematically under one theory and with particles that are at least indirectly observable (electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear), and a fourth which doesn't quite fit (gravity). Despite these obvious problems, no one started looking at the quantum banana-eating by quantum monkeys as a possible unifying factor.

      To establish a unified theory including gravity, scientists are currently using strings, rather than monkeys, as a unifying element. However, the majority of these theories are neither testable nor useful for the advancement of mankind. None of them so much as mention quantum poo, or postulate that quantum monkeys could have thrown it.

      To this day, the world waits for scientists start to seek out the quantum monkeys that have so long waited for proper credit to be given to them for unifying quantum forces. So we wait still, a working unified theory still out of our grasp.
    • First I learn Newton is only an approximation...now even Einstein...is only an approximation as well. Will the real reality please reveal itself!

      Here ya go [nasa.gov]
           
  • Go back? (Score:5, Funny)

    by myrdred (597891) on Friday May 16 2008, @01:07AM (#23429168)
    So, then, once you go black... you can go back?
  • by Twigmon (1095941) on Friday May 16 2008, @01:15AM (#23429200) Homepage
    ...but fly in the face of Einsteinian relativity.

    Sounds like God is a little grumpy about Einstein's letter coming out.