Black Holes Don't Trap Information Forever 384
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."
Oh great... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh great... (Score:5, Funny)
That was along my line of thought when seeing the title, except in reverse. I was thinking this was going to be a great way to store long-term backups.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
pretty continua (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Funny)
wrong (Score:5, Funny)
But if you live in a 3-d world then having a bunch of 2-d simmulations is like have a ream of paper. 500 sheets of paper stack up nicely and consume very little of our 3-d world.
in 6-d our 3-d world is a trivial piece of it and computers can easily simmulate it.
No the problem is that there's not an algebraic solution to any polynomial greater than fifth order. Thus they wind up having to numerically approximate the mappings from 6D and this has round off errors from the finite bit floating point representation in Exel 6D.
Re:wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Insightful)
That statement implies the existence of a second kind of time. If only x,y,z,t exist then you don't "do" anything in that four-dimensional space. You simply exist as a static four-dimensional object in a static four-dimensional universe.
Re:pretty continua (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, however, I think the more critical questions are:
Who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp?
Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong?
Who put the bop in the bop shoo bop shoo bop?
Who put the dip in the dip da dip da dip?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Funny)
It's turtles all the way down :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More diabolical than that (Score:5, Funny)
The quantum unit of information is a "ficton".
The rest of the jokes write themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
No (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:More diabolical than that (Score:5, Funny)
Non-integer number of bits (Score:3, Informative)
Is it? There may be a piece of information smaller than one bit or otherwise not integer number of bits... For example, confirmation of the more probable of two possible options would be less than a bit, while choosing the less probable one would be more than a bit (but less than two)...
Considering, that humans give birth to slightly more girls than boys, announcing to your family, that your child is a female transfers (very slightly) less than a
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, all the jokes write themselves [uncyclopedia.org]. Except the one about black holes [uncyclopedia.org]. As TFA says, information can escape from a black hole, but after getting out of one of the damned things it's way too tired to talk and besides, it has a headache right now.
Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Insightful)
Asking a physicist if the universe is infinitely complex is like asking a salesman if his product is shoddy. They both have a vested interest in the answer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably anyone would like to make a discovery on that scale, but which world would you rather live in?
Re:pretty continua (Score:4, Insightful)
Then again, even if there is no end, there's always the next secret waiting, and who know what that could be? If there's no end to what we could know and what we could do, then life may take an inconceivable direction.
Even if we do discover the last secret though, there will be a million minds invested in the application of those secrets, and it's my naive hope, for the betterment of mankind.
(Also, I wanted to make a pun about black hole being black boxes, but I just don't think it's going to work out.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Informative)
Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Interesting)
- Stephen Hawking making the same mistake much more recently
Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Funny)
if two particles are quantum-entangled, and you separate them, they remain entangled and you can monitor the state of one using the other. (Although I never understood what happens when one particle is accelerated to near light speed: how do two particles on different time scales stay connected?)
So now drop one particle of the pair into a black hole.
If they remain entangled, then you clearly have a way to pass information out of the black hole (although time may be stretched so it's not instantaneous anymore). This breaks known physics.
If their entanglement is broken off, then it means the gravitation boundary of a black hole trumps quantum entanglement. But that breaks known physics.
I'll take questions from the audience now. Yes, Dr Kip Thorne?
Thorne: You bastard.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In the mean time, a reasonable stab at an intuitive understanding is that two particles of unknown state are entangled when the examination of one reveals the state of both.
The "spooky" things about entanglement are that (a) the unknown state can persist for long time intervals and (b) the quantum states of one of the particles cannot be fully described without knowing the quantum states of the othe
After 42, s/science/engineering/g (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If eventually the universe was completely described, what use would there be for science?
I can think of a use or forty-two...
It would be good for one person's place in the history books to discover the Ultimate Final Secret of the Entire Universe, but boring as hell thereafter.
Boring my left buttock. The brilliant minds who had devoted their lives to science would likely devote their lives to engineering.
LOL That is like saying that now that we have *finally* figured out the -rules- of chess we are masters of the game and thus it is boring forever.
Figuring out the rules is just the first step. The set of all possibilities under those rules should be staggering to any level of intellect and experience.
Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Interesting)
An interesting way of expressing this is with a coin toss. A finite probability of two possible results, heads or tails. However that coin toss can also be infinitely complex when you consider a far more complex reaction, like which calcium atoms would transfer from the surface of your thumb nail to the surface of the table during that same experiment, a result that would not only be governed by the orbital motions of the sub atomic particles making up the surface of the your nail, the coin and the table but also the larger motions of galaxy altering gravity, major electro magnetic fields and your only own personal reactions, a infinitely complex calculation far beyond our abilities to forecast.
The interesting point being that based upon significance, an 'in reality' infinitely complex reaction can be reduced to the simple finite result of heads or tails, hmm, the nature of our universe and, the importance of relativity and significance.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think it's time for science to step up and say something about how we live our lives and structure our societies, however, the obstacles are immense.
Scientist: Uh, hi.
Totally hawt babe: Hi! What's up?
Scientist: Uh.. I have the results of our latest cultural analysis.
Totally hawt babe: Yeah that's why I'm here! What's next for me?
Scientist: Well.. we have to have a one night stand. Possibly two nights, the data is currently a bit unclear.
Totally hawt babe: Let me see that!
Scientist: You know that's against the rules! Security! Take this woman to my living quarters!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a committed atheist and believer in evolutionary biology
Isn't that like saying "I am a committed non cinema-goer and believer in people having to eat otherwise they will die"?
Would you say you are a "believer" in gravity too? Those just seems to be a strange choice of words to me if you consider the theory of evolution to be valid, and you think God doesn't exist. How can you be a "committed atheist", does it involve the difficult task of making sure you don't go to church on sunday, don't ever read the bible and never accidentally exclaim "oh, God/Jesus/Buddha
Re:pretty continua (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps the universe's formula is something like a fractal, with infinite complexity and depth.
Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Funny)
Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Funny)
+0.99999997387120382 Insightful
Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Funny)
according to the accuracy of measurement
Re:pretty continua (Score:4, Funny)
Re:pretty continua (Score:4, Funny)
So the universe isn't so complex after all: it simply runs on a Pentium.
Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Funny)
Re:pretty continua (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:pretty continua (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps that explains why we find women attractive.
No phase transitions (Score:5, Interesting)
Almost everything interesting in thermo has to do with a phase transitition popping up somewhere.
THe funny thing is this. There are no phase transitions in the real world. THey only occur on paper continuuum models. However there are a lot of things that look awfully like phase transitions so they are useful to think about.
What am I babbling about. Well phase transitions happen at places where infinite derivatives occur in mappings. And that's all fine on paper where you have an infinite number of states. If you think of states as being something like basis vectors then it' like saying you can write a fourier transform of a square edge with a continuum of frequencies.
But since there's only a finite number of states available to any system, you dont have enough basis vectors to describe a discountinuty.
So phase transitions dont' exist technically speaking. There's always some transition zone around the edge of the transition.
I think this is what they are talking about here.
Re:pretty continua (Score:4, Informative)
I wouldn't call quantum theory ugly, just counter-intuitive, and that, I think, comes from the fact that at our magnification level, we don't see anything that behaves quite like anything at quantum level.
The most insightful thing I've ever read on that is Feynman's introduction to quantum theory:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Known for years (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Known for years (Score:4, Funny)
Couldn't you just continue the trend and hallucinate the prize?
Come out again?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Come out again?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Come out again?! (Score:4, Funny)
Wait...nevermind...
Re:Come out again?! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Come out again?! (Score:5, Funny)
just can't wait (Score:5, Funny)
Black holes - not hairy (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Black holes - not hairy (Score:5, Insightful)
CHUCK NORRIS (Score:5, Funny)
and the event horizon of Chuck Norris is infinity.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Black holes - not hairy (Score:4, Interesting)
Mondern Thermodynamics, Information Theory and after a bitter battle event Quantium Mechanics and GR have admited that black holes indeed do have hair. Even Hawkins has given up this battle and admitted he was wrong. (sidenote: It is an interesting story how Hawkins would say he he proved this point in a recent paper. Many physicsts dispute his version of events as it was already obvious which way the wind was blowing and regard Hawkins paper as a refolumation of the results from the work of others in the above sciences - and not even the most useful formulation at that).
As the artical says what goes in to the black hole will eventually escape or to put it in another more correct way, the information concerning the state of the matter and light that once *fell* in to the BH will become available to the universe again at some, possible distant, point in the future.
I have a feeling the meme "black holes don't have hair" is so atractive and addictive we will be living with and debunking it on slashdot for many years to come but lets be very clear, black holes do have hair.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"origin" is not a distinct physical characteristic, especially *if* information cannot be extracted from the black hole;
estimated life-span is likewise not a distinct physical characteristic, but depends on the evaporation rate of the 'hole, which may be obtained from the mass and rotation (which give the mass-to-surface-area ratio simply in the case of no rotation, and more complicatedly in the case of non-zero rotation).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's just such a faint white that you'd swear it's black.
But does that mean... (Score:5, Funny)
Groundhole Day (Score:3, Funny)
Then we could relive the sinister joy of exposing you to it for the first time over and over.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But does that mean... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But does that mean... (Score:5, Funny)
And lo, the LORD appeared unto Moses and the LORD said thus: "Moses, I command you to look at this picture I found." And Moses looked at the picture and it was of a naked man doing unusual things to his behind. And a great unease came over Moses and he said: "My LORD, I beg you for a spoon to carve my eyes out with." And the LORD was greatly amused.
LHC (Score:5, Funny)
Re:LHC (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The real threats (asteroids and comets) don't seem do the trick, so it's time for much more improbable, but also oh so much more terrifying, painful and poetic threat of the Earth being devoured from under our feet by tiny black holes of our own making.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There has also been speculation that the universe is just tiny curled up pieces of string too... but nobody listens to that nonsense.
$100 on Hawking! (Score:3, Funny)
Also, $100 on Kaku. I don't know why, but I suspect he knows jujutsu....
Yet another approximation of reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Will the real reality please reveal itself!
At last! Someone seeks my work! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Yet another approximation of reality (Score:5, Funny)
Here ya go [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your patience, the Universe.
thermo (Score:4, Funny)
Information can not be destroyed.
Re:thermo (Score:4, Funny)
laws of thermodynamics (Score:2, Informative)
Re:thermo (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, in the language of the non-scientific, "God sees all, God knows everything, God is all powerful".
Perhaps instead of condemning Christians for being unscientific, modern scientists, like Newton, should put more effort into understanding religious language!
Go back? (Score:5, Funny)
Einstein's Letter (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like God is a little grumpy about Einstein's letter coming out.
blue pill? (Score:2)
What is awesome about that article... (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the increasing "threat" of religious propaganda (if I was an American I'd be more worried about Intelligent Design getting taught in schools than I would be about terrorists), its so awesome to see a perfect example of how scientists operate: a new, better theory comes along and the old stuff is abandoned in favour of it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Each bit of lost information will lead to the release of an amount kT ln 2 of heat, where k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the absolute temperature of the circuit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_Principle [wikipedia.org]
It's actually quite remarkable - the ONLY thing that even costs energy is destroying information.
Horaaaay! (Score:3, Funny)
If a continuum is only an approximation... (Score:2)
So it IS possible... (Score:5, Funny)
Why can't information be destroyed? (Score:3, Insightful)
I realize that we're talking about quantum information, not the Library of Congress, and the preferred simplicity of the equations that describe events that work regardless of the direction (sign) of time. Why does the universe have to be built around that principle just because we like the equations?
I've heard "scary stories" (thanks, George Carlin) about "causality" issues, but AFAICT, they're only scary to those who insist on time-symmetry, not that the universe cannot function that way.
Hawking's pan-dimensional replication of information really sounds like a desperate ploy to retain a childhood fantasy by spinning elaborate webs to sustain it, rather than just asking the simpler question: how would a universe work if information can be destroyed?
Maybe, if information CAN be destroyed, it explains the apparent (at the human level, at least) directionality of time. If the universe is open, at some far-future time, when the protons, neutrons, etc, have decayed, the information of their quantum states will be gone; not transformed, gone. If the universe is closed, it will collapse back into a singularity, and again, the information will be gone. So, what?
Tags (Score:3, Funny)
Re:ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
How the hell would you know if it did?
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
...eciton dluow enoyna
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they mean it's not continuous. It's quantized.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you want to avoid the use of the word "forever" when discussing physics. It apparently does not mean what you think it means (for certain values of entropy, YMMV).
While it seems certain to me that amongst the myriad multiverses that spawn every time Heisenberg kills a kitten there must be an effectively infinite number of universes where your statement is true, none of them are this one. To get there from here you have to take the long way 'round. Go
Re:ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Or better analogy, time runs like a movie, but instead of 24 frames per second of an actual movie, real time runs about
18550000000000000000000000000000000000000000 frames per second (1/Planck Time).
And same goes for space. A HD movie on a nice TV might have 2000 pixels per meter. The space has something like 62500000000000000000000000000000000 "pixels" per meter (1/Planck Length).
(Note to viewers: Things may appear distorted if viewed from great distance or if viewed from a very fast moving car. This is due to the effects of general relativity, and does not reflect the real quality of our production. We apologize for the inconvenience, and hope you will enjoy the show, no matter where you are watching this.)
Re:Damn (Score:5, Funny)
No, its worthless because you signed the patent application "Anonymous Coward".