How an Astronaut Falling Into a Black Hole Would Die Part 2 263
First time accepted submitter ydrozd writes "Until recently, most physicists believed that an observer falling into a black hole would experience nothing unusual when crossing its event horizon. As has been previously mentioned on Slashdot, there is a strong argument, initially based on observing an entangled pair at the event horizon, that suggests that the unfortunate observer would instead be burned up by a high energy quanta (a.k.a "firewall") just before crossing the black hole's event horizon. A new paper significantly improves the argument by removing reliance on quantum entanglement. The existence of black hole "firewalls" is a rare breakthrough in theoretical physics."
Pay wall crap. (Score:2, Informative)
The only new information cited is behind a $25 pay wall. Kill it with fire.
Re:Pay wall crap. (Score:5, Informative)
Fortunately, in physics, nearly everyone posts a manuscript version on arxiv.org (i.e. the same article but with the authors' own formatting, rather than the journal's layout). And indeed that is the case here [arxiv.org].
Non-paywalled link (Score:5, Informative)
Hopefully the last time too (Score:2)
From a surfeit of "would"s, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem that verbs enter a black hole, temporarily escape, and are again swallowed by said black hole.
Firewall? (Score:2)
I wonder how you setup a static nat on a Black Hole...
hmmm
Re:Firewall? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, the firewall rules for a black hole are easy: You let every packet in, but none out.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but what happens to the information in the packet - is it destroyed or not?
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you're falling into a black hole you're not going to be worrying about that.
You know what they say... (Score:4, Funny)
It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden ...oh wait, it IS the fall that kills you.
Any volunteers . . . ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The funny thing is . . . if someone announced a space program to toss an astronaut down a black hole . . . there would be plenty of volunteers for the mission.
Long before the event horizon (Score:2, Insightful)
The gravitational force on physical objects would squeeze his body to a spaghetti far before the event horizon.
Hopefully quickly.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't agree. If you assume he is 1.5 meters high, then the relative forces at the event horizon would be minimal, remember it is over r^2. The Schwarzschild radius as it is called. If you took our sun's mass and converted to to black hole densities, it would be r of 2,950 m. Now, the force at this even horizon would then be 2950m and 2951.5m Find the tidal forces over that 1.5 meters. It's not a whole lot. However you start to get into time dilation, again over 1.5 meters it isn't that much.
Roche limit is a better term to use (Score:2)
Roche limit describes the maximum characteristic length of a gravitationally bound body in orbit of another object based on gravitational gradient. Basically, no larger objects (of similar density) are expected to form at any particular orbit level. It's not a perfect fit for something that is chemically bound, but you can still derive a form of it using other physical constants of the right units. Yield strength, for instance.
Re:Long before the event horizon (Score:5, Informative)
Find the tidal forces over that 1.5 meters. It's not a whole lot. However you start to get into time dilation, again over 1.5 meters it isn't that much.
Really now. And how did you arrive at it not being "a whole lot"? Let's insert some numbers, shall we? The mass of the sun is about 2e30 kg. Its Schwartzschild radius is, as you say, 2950 km. The acceleration according to Newtonian gravity at that point is 1.5211095e13 m/s^2. 1.5 meters further out (that's a short astronaut, by the way), the acceleration is 1.5195660e13 m/s^2. The difference is 2.057e10 m/s^2. I.e. roughly 2 billion g. Most of us would find it hard to stay together under such tension, but I guess you're made of stronger stuff!
(Of course, Newtonian gravity doesn't work very well for such strong gravitational fields. But it's enough to tell you that you're in a lot of trouble.)
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks. I must have messed something up with the exponents. 2 billion g is a lot of G.
Re: (Score:2)
With a much more massive black hole, the radius increases so your 2 billion g's goes down to a
"much more comfortable" several 10's of millions of g's
Except that black hole "firewalls" don't exist (Score:5, Informative)
Black hole firewalls don't really exist.
Here's a summary:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6334 [arxiv.org]
and the long paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6335 [arxiv.org]
Resolving the issue.
In short, the black hole paradox doesn't exist and can be explained.
Motl has a really nice summary as well:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/10/raju-papadodimas-isolate-reasons-why.html [blogspot.com]
Re:Except that black hole "firewalls" don't exist (Score:5, Funny)
Black hole firewalls don't really exist.
Indeed. A firewall would be useless. Any virus trying to penetrate the event horizon would be turned into harmless spaghetti code anyway.
silly (Score:2)
you are just posting competing hypothesis.
How do you see the entagled pair at the EH? (Score:2)
I'm sort of lost here. Granted I know very little about this subject, but what I do know is black holes are far away. And entangled pairs are really fucking small. So how the hell can we see entangled pairs at the event horizon of a black hole? Seems to me if we can see stuff that small, that far away, finding planets similar to ours would be easy, since they are very very very much bigger.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think we can see anything at all, at present, other than their gravitational effect. For example, the mass of something at the center of our galaxy can be determined by the orbits of some stars zipping around it, and the size of those orbits put an upper bound on that something's diameter.
If we were nearer we should be able to see something similar to black body radiation, assuming we weren't blinded by the material swarming around it and falling in.
Interestingly, some physicists think that we migh
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't have anything to do with telescopic observation, this has to do with math.
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't have anything to do with telescopic observation, this has to do with math.
Ah, math, the answer to everything.
So then basically they are just guessing and really have no idea at all if they are right or not. Figures.
Re: (Score:2)
they're guessing if the information could theoretically pass through.. or rather not guessing but trying to reason it could.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... just guessing. Like the way that finite element systems work by guessing, and how a CT scanner just guesses at what it sees inside your body, and the way that Einstein just guessed at the corrections necessary to make GPS work, and how Higgs et al just guessed at a particle necessary to make gauge invariance work properly. You know, all so much guesswork... "they" have no idea at all. :-P
They claimed to observe a entangled pair on the event horizon of a Black Hole, when they simulated a Black Hole using math, which may or not actually be a true representation of how a black hole behaves. So yes, it is guess. Now, if they went to a black hole and use instruments to measure the entangled pair, then I'd be cool. But instead, they claimed they did it, when all they did was run a simulation and did math based on it.
So yes, that is guessing. Educated guessing, but still guessing.
Way to proof-read the topic. (Score:2)
Cloaking? Silly but... (Score:2)
Too much romance - it's radiation! (Score:2)
Sorry guys, it's not romantic at all,
the astronaut would die or be dead anyway, if the black hole is
a.) in absolute Vacuum, nerve destruction by hard gamma radiation+particle radiation, even his spacesuit would not protect him
Why ? -> gamma radiation black body radiation, continuum source -> temperature -> high temperature -> short wave lengths -> hard gamma radiation
Where comes the radiation from, his own atoms off course !
Absolute Vacuum + Astronaut = not a vacuum anymore.
b.) in interstella
Re: (Score:2)
this is rediculous
I thought you said it was radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
The thought experiment is about what peculiarity the black hole death holds, so give him a perfect radiation proof suit and try again.
Or, try this question instead. After dying of radiation, what happens to the body? The context to this question, fundamentally, is whether a person would be shredded or squished, or just fall forever, or maybe hit a wall of fire and burn up. Dead or alive.
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not so fast (Score:2)
Please remember that there is basically no experimental evidence for any of this speculation. No. Experimental. Evidence. There is barely evidence for general relativity type black holes*, no evidence at all for Hawking radiation, and thus of course no evidence for the theoretical infrastructure built on top of Hawking radiation.
And, plenty of (theoretical) papers have looked [arxiv.org] at this and come to alternate [arxiv.org] conclusions [arxiv.org].
I suspect that when we actually do start experimenting with black hole event horizons dire
Other conditons (Score:2)
If someone falls into a black hole, is their soul stuck there for the 62 zillion years it takes the black hole to evaporate?
If you pushed someone into a black hole, could you beat the murder rap by pointing out that he still hadn't finished falling in, from the jury's reference frame?
If you modified Shrõdinger's experiment so that the decay of an atom dropped the cat into a black hole rather than gassing it, then put a cat in the box to create a superposition of "the cat is in the black hole" and "the
So, better an arrow to the knee*... (Score:2)
... than to be an adventurer who is the first to enter a black hole.
*Note: Yes, horrible Skyrim joke reference that is completely out of date... but someone had to say it... (grin)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong (Score:2)
There are so many things wrong with this article. First you'd be torn apart by tidal forces. Long before you got anywhere near it. If you somehow survived that, then time would slow as you approached. The wavelength of light would stretch due to time dilation, and the light hitting you from stars in the sky would shorten, so much so that you'd be roasted by high energy radiation. Lastly, it would take a very very very long time to actually reach the event horizon. As time slowed the victim would likely see
Tidal forces (Score:2)
I always assumed the astronaut would be ripped apart by tidal forces long before reaching the event horizon.
crappy grammar (Score:2)
The crappy grammar would kill him before he even would got there.
Re: (Score:2)
And slipshod editing.
As the universe gravitates towards irony (Score:2)
The astronauts freeze dried ice-cream would come through intact. Didn't you ever wonder why the stuff in the museum seems like it's been around for trillions of years?
I HAVE got to get me one of these... (Score:2)
The existence of black hole "firewalls"...
This is the firewall I have been wanting for my home LAN.
But I'm guessing it may be tricky to implement without sucking everything out of my network, including me...
Conduct an experiment (Score:2)
Launch a suitably instrumented satellite into orbit around earth. Crank up the LHC, creating a small black hole. This will rapidly consume the earth. Since the mass of this black hole would be the same as that of the earth, the satellite's orbit would not be affected. The satellite could then make numerous measurements of phenomena occurring at the event horizon.
OK, repeatability would be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking more like crushed like a marshmallow in an infinite pressure pressure-cooker.
Or pummeled to death by other matter falling into the black hole.
Or die from the radiation.
Or die from being absorbed into a star falling into said black hole.
Or from the smell of shitting their pants in the space suit once they realize they're falling into a black hole.
Or just from lack of oxygen, dehydration, or starvation, as it's a pretty long trip from here to the nearest black hole. [universetoday.com] 1600 light years is a long tr
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking more like crushed like a marshmallow in an infinite pressure pressure-cooker.
Or pummeled to death by other matter falling into the black hole.
Or die from the radiation.
Or die from being absorbed into a star falling into said black hole.
Or from the smell of shitting their pants in the space suit once they realize they're falling into a black hole.
Or just from lack of oxygen, dehydration, or starvation, as it's a pretty long trip from here to the nearest black hole. [universetoday.com] 1600 light years is a long trip, even at the speed of light.
Yes to the above.
Spaghettification is one component of the end game. The gravity delta from head to
toe would tear a human into a true mess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification [wikipedia.org]
In addition any external mass like the space ship or any maneuvering jet
reaction mass would accelerate to the point of generating astoundingly short
wavelength ionizing radiation and the proteins of life would be totally denatured.
I would discount the smell of poo in the pants as being fatal, stuff happens
as we all know but n
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking any which way it's a bad place to end up.
When aliens finally visit Earth and drop off a huge fleet of spare intergalactic spaceships, I'll make sure to ask for maps that avoid unsurvivable gravity wells. :)
I think we'll be ok for quite a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Spaghetti (Score:4, Interesting)
A black hole would eventually stretch a person into spagetti, but not necessarily near the event horizon. For a small black hole the effect might be well outside the event horizon while for a supermassive black hole the effect would be well inside of it.
This is because the event horizon of a super-massive black hole is so large that while the gravitational pull there is enormous, the variation in the graviational forces in a human-sized volume is quite small. It's the variation in the forces that stretches you.
Likewise, while the total gravitation pull well outside the event horizon of a small black hole is much less than the total gravitational pull near the event horizon of a super-massive one, the variation is much higher.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless the argument is that a black hole can sustain a a dense field of sub-atomic particles in high speed orbit near the event horizon in a toroidal form collapsing at the poles. So the answer to what happens to an astronaut who falls into a black hole, well, that depends upon whether it is near the black holes equator or it's poles.
Re:Spaghetti (Score:4, Interesting)
My understanding/way I imagine it is that; as you move towards the blackhole, the particles that make up the astronaut cause the event horizon to come out to meet them, and this curves the event horizon and this causes a local burst of Hawking-type radiation that rips apart the astronaut, and this radiation spreads out from the impact point in a wave; that in turn creates more perturbations of the horizon and so on. You end up with a very thin ring of fire all around the black hole. And this never goes away; indeed it forms the moment the black hole does, and so there's actually nothing inside the blackhole, just flat spacetime. In a sense I suppose the collapse never completely happens you end up with just a shell of matter.
Re: (Score:2)
So the flying spaghetti monster could, one day, be for real...
Re: (Score:3)
So the flying spaghetti monster could, one day, be for real...
It was created when a walking lasagne monster got too close to a black hole.
Re: (Score:2)
You beat me to it, the tidal effects would tear you apart. You can shield radiation, you can't shield gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
You beat me to it, the tidal effects would tear you apart. You can shield radiation, you can't shield gravity.
Yet.
Re:So what should the family do? (Score:5, Insightful)
He'd die of old age.
The nearest black hole is 1600 light-years away [universetoday.com]. If our astronaught started to journey thence, at the beginning of the Bronze age, it would be conceivable that he'd arrive there sometime in the next couple hundred years - using the fastest of feasibly extrapolated propulsion technologies. This of course, supposing those could have existed after the retreat f European ice-sheets.
Any other planned method to acquire more rapid proximity to a black hole, probably wouldn't work out, [huffingtonpost.com] either...
Re:So what should the family do? (Score:5, Funny)
The nearest black hole is 1600 light-years away
Famous last words...
Re:So what should the family do? (Score:5, Funny)
"Well, the thing about a black hole - its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space -- the color of space, your basic space color -- is it's black. So how are you supposed to see them?" - Holly
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course space isn't really black; rather it is completely transparent. It's the cosmic horizon behind it which is black. Actually at the horizon there's the glow of the big bang, but it is so heavily red-shifted that we only see it in the microwave range (the cosmic microwave background). Now in principle, when looking in the microwave range, black holes should be detectable as "microwave shadows". However I don't think we can measure microwaves in sufficient angular resolution for that.
Re:So what should the family do? (Score:4, Informative)
Of course space isn't really black; rather it is completely transparent.
Of course you are correct that it's not black. However, it's also not "completely transparent". It's "mostly transparent". There are stray atoms and molecules wandering around, and even gigantic clouds of gas and other matter, which all scatter light and other radiation.
If we're going to be real, then let's be real.
Re: (Score:2)
If we're going to be real, then let's be real.
Oh goody, time to split hairs!
The stray atoms and molecules wandering around are not space. They are matter. Space is the region between those atoms, and it is completely transparent.
Re: (Score:3)
"black holes have no hair" [wikipedia.org]
If they have no hair you can't split their hairs.
Re: (Score:2)
However I don't think we can measure microwaves in sufficient angular resolution for that.
Radio telescopes do exactly that. A DishTV antenna can give you a beam of couple of degrees wide at 10 GHz - and you can hold this antenna in your arms. Larger antennas provide far better resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
So the best answer on how an astronaut will die is "like the rest of mankind"? The only way to go to a black hole is that there is one coming toward us (don't need to be so far, is hard to detect them unless they interact with enough matter), and probably the cause of death won't be falling into it, but the mess that it will cause in the solar system just for getting close.
Anyway, they are not very common, maybe the closest one is that one 1600 light years away, and we probably will never get to it, or eve
Re:So what should the family do? (Score:4, Funny)
So the best answer on how an astronaut will die is "like the rest of mankind"?
I think the best answer is that the astronaut would die of humiliation, because of all the laughter from the other astronauts for falling into a black hole.
Nearest we can see (Score:3)
The nearest black hole is 1600 light-years away
That's the nearest one that we can see. However we only detect them by seeing emissions from the matter which falls into them. There could easily be one nearer that is nowhere near any matter. The only way we would then be able to detect it is by its gravitational influence on the solar system.
However, regardless of this, if you actually made it to a Black Hole the tidal forces would rip you apart well before you close enough to worry about massive time dilation effects. The closer you get to the black
Re: (Score:2)
Radiation (Score:2)
Assuming you could get to a black hole before dying of old age.....
Gamma Radiation would kill you long before a quantum firewall or tidal forces.
No matter = no radiation (Score:2)
Assuming you could get to a black hole before dying of old age.....
That was my point - there might be one close enough that you might imagine getting to it within your lifetime because we can't see it. Such a BH would not emit gamma radiation because there is no matter falling into it which is where the gamma emission comes from. Indeed if it was emitting gamma radiation we would see it because of that.
Gamma Radiation would kill you long before a quantum firewall or tidal forces.
The only radiation a BH in the absence of matter emits is Hawking radiation and, while I'm not an astrophysicist and don't have the precise numbers to hand, I believe that
Re: (Score:2)
I have only a qualitive understanding of this, but I think Hawking radiation is the radiation that escapes the blackhole; but there's probably some quantum-generated particles produced that don't have enough energy to escape and promptly fall back in again.
So as you fall into the blackhole, it will get warmer and warmer, until you get burnt to a crisp by the Hawking radiation that forms near to the event horizon which is unable to escape.
It's kind of like a sonic boom, or more like a light boom.
Re: (Score:3)
Hawking radiation is produced when vacuum fluctuations near the event horizon produce a particle pair, one of the two fall in, and the other escapes. In order to make the process make mass-energy sense, the particle that falls in is more probably the antiparticle of the pair so that the BH supposedly emits normal matter and decays. For tiny/microscopic black holes this process is supposedly extremely rapid so that they "evaporate". For "large" BHs, it takes so long that one can nearly ignore the process
Re:Nearest we can see (Score:5, Informative)
That's correct. On a 1-stellar mass black hole, the tidal force across a human body at the event horizon would shredded well before you get to the event horizon. But on a supermassive black hole, no such thing would hapen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nearest we can see (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
True, but in any scenario at all this is about what would happen to his corpse.
Re:So what should the family do? (Score:4, Interesting)
No he wouldn't. With an acceleration of 1g you can reach the edge of the visible universe in a mere 40 years due to time dilation. A nearby black hole would take much less time.
See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If our astronaught started to journey thence, at the beginning of the Bronze age, it would be conceivable that he'd arrive there sometime in the next couple hundred years
Nitpick: thence, hence and whence denote movement from, whereas thither, hither, and whither denote movement to. The astronaut would have to already be there to start a journey thence. Compare the well known expression "go back whence you came".
Given the rarity of these terms in modern English, I believe it is safe to assume that anyone using them is attempting to speak correctly with an air of erudition, which is why I have tried to bring this to your attention, even if this comment will likely be buried
Re:So what should the family do? (Score:4, Interesting)
The escape velocity of a neutron star is about 1/3 the speed of light --- and getting mass to 1/3 the speed of light is absolutely impossible.
Escape velocity from the Sun is 617 km/per second --- not even New Horizons at 35,000 kph is anywhere close to that!
Jupiter's escape velocity? About 60 kps --- so if New Horizons was 8 or 9 times faster, would match that.
But black holes --- are not especially dangerous to humans in any way that any other massive objects (gas giants included) aren't. For some reason, we teach kids and adults that blackholes are "evil" and suck up everything --- but blackholes are very helpful holding galaxies together and binding our galaxies together so that they are warm and stable for extremely long periods of time.
Without blackholes, the universe may not be able to support life without the stability that blackholes give to galaxies.
So quit dogging our friends, the blackholes, you insensitive jerks!
Re:So what should the family do? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how we treat blackholes specially.
Why shouldn't we? They're extremely interesting.
For some reason, we teach kids and adults that blackholes are "evil" and suck up everything
At least that's less wrong than declaring that:
getting mass to 1/3 the speed of light is absolutely impossible.
Re:So what should the family do? (Score:5, Funny)
Interstellar racism, you think?
Re: (Score:2)
Specism, not racism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The paper isn't really about how an astronaut would die. It is about the nature of the interface between the inside and the outside of the black hole.
This is interesting because it has applications to cosmology in general. In fact, many (perhaps even most) of our cosmological models have their origins in the study of the theory of black holes and, particularly, the study of event horizons. This makes them fundamentally more interesting to study than neutron stars and the like to many cosmologists.
Re: (Score:2)
The escape velocity of a neutron star is about 1/3 the speed of light --- and getting mass to 1/3 the speed of light is absolutely impossible.
Actually, you can get mass to within a whisker of the speed of light right on your desk:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/desktop-sized-atom-smasher-demonstrated/ [wattsupwiththat.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what should the family do? (Score:5, Informative)
First off, New Horizons is travelling at 35,000 MPH, not kph. Second, those escape velocities would be at the surface of the body for unpowered bodies. Escape velocity decreases with distance from the body. It's possible to simply accelerate directly away from an object and never reach speeds anywhere close to escape velocity, until you are far enough away that you have simply exceeded (that now much lower) escape velocity threshold. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible to simply accelerate directly away from an object and never reach speeds anywhere close to escape velocity, until you are far enough away that you have simply exceeded (that now much lower) escape velocity threshold.
You may not need to get to surface escape velocity, but if you were to do that, wouldn't your delta-V expenditure be higher in the long run?
Re: (Score:3)
"and getting mass to 1/3 the speed of light is absolutely impossible."
Isn't that done in particle accelerators every day?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they would get a much fairer treatment if they were white holes!
Re:So what should the family do? (Score:5, Informative)
FTFY: and getting mass to 1/3 the speed of light is currently impossible
Actually, it's very possible; about every accelerator in the world does it regularly.
Having said that, getting a macroscopic mass to 1/3 the speed of light is currently impossible. Well, at least when considered from the frame of reference in which it originally was at rest.
Re: (Score:3)
Having said that, getting a macroscopic mass to 1/3 the speed of light is currently impossible. Well, at least when considered from the frame of reference in which it originally was at rest.
Where are the mods? +5 insightful. Note: currently impossible. Look at how primitive things were just half a century ago.
Re:So what should the family do? (Score:4, Funny)
"Look at how primitive things were just half a century ago."
Like Slashdot 1.0?
Re: (Score:2)
It would be very easy, let the neutron star's gravity do the work. The hard part is getting to one at all at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
If the astronaut would be very small he might notice nothing.
Or if the black hole was very big. Which most of the ones we know about are.
Re:Views from a layman (Score:4, Interesting)
hey man...good thoughts...
I think I might have some answers...
It seems, and this research bolsters the idea, that the Event Horizon obliterates **everything** and scatters the energy across the event horizon. Anything like "Hawking Radiation" then becomes just another result of the Event Horizon obliterating matter. The characteristics (information) of the matter (speed, mass, velocity, spin, charge, etc etc) are truly completely obliterated at the Event Horizon.
In this way, *nothing* ever actually crosses the Event Horizon. The 'Black Hole' then functions as a perfect 'black body'.
This view has repurcussions across physics. If what I say is true, then essentially, Black Holes could be viewed as bubbles in the Quantum Foam of the universe. Which means the universe ends in heat death.
black holes are bubbles of pure nothingness (Score:2)
I've always sided against Hawking on this...Susskind was right
I think you actually agree with me, b/c this is the same as the EH 'obliterating' it...
I never said it was "lost" i said it was "obliterated"
the **way** the energy is dispersed across the EH preserves the 2nd Law...the conflict over whether information is 'lost' or 'not lost' is a fault of Hawking-style information theory. Hawking (as is his c
black hole gets bigger.... (Score:2)
sorry...one last thing...
when matter hits the Event Horizon, it is obliterated into 'nothing' and scattered across the EH...
one thing I forgot to mention is that, again, the 2nd Law is not violated in my view b/c the **black hole gets bigger** as it obliterates matter
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, that headline is a classic "copy/paste/rewrite" mistake.