Black holes, hologram theory and conservation of information.

[tbourner]

So I'm interested in physics and stuff, but I only watch the lay-folk programs on TV about it really. I've read some bits online but I tend to ignore the math involved (even though I've done degree level pure maths). So can someone explain to me why there's such an issue with black holes?

 

They say anything entering the event horizon is spaghettified and destroyed, and that a spontaneously created particle/anti-particle pair could be split by the EH, one falling in and the other escaping (Hawking radiation). Though they haven't found proof of Hawking radiation (and it's now been discredited?) they still can't work out how things entering the EH are destroyed, as that means information is destroyed which doesn't happen. And now they've got this hologram theory which I haven't even looked at because it just seems daft.

 

But, surely stuff falling into the EH just falls to the extremely massive object in the middle, making it slightly larger and maybe slightly more massive. What's the issue? It's not been destroyed it's just that we can't see it or measure it as the gravity of the extremely massive object is too strong. Is there some math that I'm missing that says it must be infinite mass which makes it infinitely small which means nothing can be added? Or that photons can't be sucked in by a simple hyper-massive object there must be some other weird singularity effect that I don't understand?

On the things I've seen it's mentioned as a huge issue which nobody can solve, to me it's just a small but stupidly heavy star/planet/object whose gravity is so immense there's a point above it where photons can't escape - why does it have to mean anything is destroyed?

[AndrewOW]

On the things I've seen it's mentioned as a huge issue which nobody can solve, to me it's just a small but stupidly heavy star/planet/object whose gravity is so immense there's a point above it where photons can't escape - why does it have to mean anything is destroyed?

 

This is my take on it too. An extinct or 'dead' star, that still has an enormously powerful gravitational pull, but is dark, and basically pulls anything in from surrounding areas, including light.

 

All that other stuff kinda goes over my head really.

[Snooze]

Not 100% sure, but I think the aeroplane still takes off?

[Pixelfill]

Not 100% sure, but I think the aeroplane still takes off?

 

lol

 

:

[stevie_b]

It's a good point Trev. I've studied physics at degree level, and although they don't teach us anything about black holes as an undergrad, your conjecture about a black hole being a really massive object that's crunched itself up into something pretty damn small seems to make sense.

 

This is a part of physics that I know very little about, and I'd be interested to hear any thoughts about it.

[C_Strike]

Theres a great deal of space between atoms everything, even diamond is made of more empty space than matter.

My very amateur thoughts are towards a black hole being the next step up from a nuetron star in supermassive stars.

The gravitational pull of a neutron star is 2×10 tpo 11 times that on Earth (i have no idea how to do exponetitation on pc:P).

Its due to the organisation of the sub-atomic particles being so tight. In my worthless opinion, black holes could simply be the next step up in supermassive stars. Stars where the particles are packed even tighter.

[tbourner]

Theres a great deal of space between atoms everything, even diamond is made of more empty space than matter.

My very amateur thoughts are towards a black hole being the next step up from a nuetron star in supermassive stars.

The gravitational pull of a neutron star is 2×10 tpo 11 times that on Earth (i have no idea how to do exponetitation on pc:P).

Its due to the organisation of the sub-atomic particles being so tight. In my worthless opinion, black holes could simply be the next step up in supermassive stars. Stars where the particles are packed even tighter.

 

Exactly, even if you could ever get gravity strong enough to make something pure matter with no gaps between particles, it would still just be 'an object' with HUGE mass, it wouldn't be infinitely massive or small or anything just VERY massive and VERY small - so nothing to stop more matter being piled on top and crushed down to pure matter with no gaps - still no loss of information though surely?

[mellonman]

they say that they have now found a WHITEHOLE where everything is being pushed away from it

same as the black hole that nothing can escape it but just the other way around

this now also points to it being the other side of a black hole so in one side and out the other (the eventherizon is the transphere point like the plug hole)

so that inturn points to worm holes where you can travel through a black hole and end up in another place ( universe, dimention).

crazy stuff that we can not answer just yet remember the world was thought to be flat once

 

i also am facinated by the stars and such things

 

dark matter!

my theory

is that there are gravitasional pulls for no aparent reason due to the fact of if we where to look out ferver then the universe you would see that the galaxeys seem to clump together in areas and resembles and sponge and its that network of all the combined galaxeys that cause that gravity its that we are so far it we cant see it.

the affect would also be the reason of most of the galaxeys being flat or disc like where this gravity is affecting the orbits of the solar systems and the galaxeys

[Max Headroom]

Its not black holes I am worried about, its those pesky brown holes that frighten me!

[shima60]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]135003[/ATTACH]

 

As stated in the film i believe its a wormhole to another part of space (Yes they went into another dimension but not what i'm getting at) I mean for every in there is an out. Maybe we just haven't come across the out as of yet.

[tbourner]

they say that they have now found a WHITEHOLE where everything is being pushed away from it

same as the black hole that nothing can escape it but just the other way around

 

TxWN8AhNER0

[mellonman]

haha classic red dwarf

 

but i was serious they do recon they found one

http://www.pashtunforums.com/science-29/first-white-hole-17865/

[Swampy442]

why does it have to mean anything is destroyed?

 

Nothing is destroyed mate, conservation of energy states matter cant be created or destroyed, just converted.

[tbourner]

Nothing is destroyed mate, conservation of energy states matter cant be created or destroyed, just converted.

 

Erm, yeah, that's my question; why do they think energy/information is destroyed in a black hole:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

[SilverSoop]

On the things I've seen it's mentioned as a huge issue which nobody can solve, to me it's just a small but stupidly heavy star/planet/object whose gravity is so immense there's a point above it where photons can't escape - why does it have to mean anything is destroyed?

 

Because once the star goes in to the super-massive black hole, it shoots out a jet of radioactive gas which was once the star which dictates that it was destroyed and then is converted in to gas for another planet to form. Not even light escapes black holes, where does light go once it goes in to the black hole?

 

I am interested in astrology and cosmology also, space and maths as a whole fascinates me

 

Mellonman, regarding your theory on dark matter, we know that dark matter keeps the planets, solar systems and galaxies together, proof of that is our own milky way. But, what about dark energy? A unknown which sees this universe actually speeding away from each other right now and is continuing to speed away.

 

Black holes are certainly strange and wonderful at the same time but I think it will never be understood. Scientist's don't really know what happens in a black hole or what happens to the subject entering the black hole. Well, why would they? Lol

 

My theory is that I still think that our universe was formed from a super-massive white hole, why else would a universe have formed from nothing in to what we have now?

 

Also, more interestingly maths says that we live in a parallel universe...a 'bubble' of universe's. That's what the scientist's think. How mind boggling is that?!

[RedM]

In some ways a block hole is a lot like a JDM headlight. No light comes out of either.

[tbourner]

Not even light escapes black holes, where does light go once it goes in to the black hole?

It lands on the surface of the star at the centre. Photons of light which usually have enough energy to escape anything can't get the speed up to escape the gravity of a black hole, so they sit on its surface along with everything else.

 

My theory is that I still think that our universe was formed from a super-massive white hole, why else would a universe have formed from nothing in to what we have now?

Maybe that's where everything goes in a black hole, through the tear in space-time created by the infinitely massive singularity and back to time 0 where it's ejected from an infinitely massive white hole - creating everything in an instant! Eventually everything will fall into a black hole and return to time 0 where the big bang will happen again (or before, technically only once).

 

Also, more interestingly maths says that we live in a parallel universe...a 'bubble' of universe's. That's what the scientist's think. How mind boggling is that?!

That's the only thing that explains the precise constants needed to keep the universe running, if we were only one universe it must mean there's a god who designed it, whereas if we're part of an infinite multiverse then it's pure logic that says we had no choice but be created like this out of pure chance.

[SilverSoop]

Maybe that's where everything goes in a black hole, through the tear in space-time created by the infinitely massive singularity and back to time 0 where it's ejected from an infinitely massive white hole - creating everything in an instant! Eventually everything will fall into a black hole and return to time 0 where the big bang will happen again (or before, technically only once).

 

Well it is said that when the universe eventually comes to an end, there possibly will be two outcomes...

 

Either dark matter will win the war and gravity will pull everything back in to one place from where the universe began...called the big crunch.

 

Or, dark energy will continue to speed up from which gravity and dark matter can't pull it back and so the universe becomes a very cold and dark place.

 

After all stars and matter have extinguished their life, there will be nothing left.

 

I am sure that in the future, scientists will come up with a way to create a worm hole of sorts and humans will be able to travel to other parts of the universe and possibly other multiverse's

 

That's the only thing that explains the precise constants needed to keep the universe running, if we were only one universe it must mean there's a god who designed it, whereas if we're part of an infinite multiverse then it's pure logic that says we had no choice but be created like this out of pure chance.

 

Exactly, mind boggling and fascinating isn't it

[Ian C]

That's the only thing that explains the precise constants needed to keep the universe running, if we were only one universe it must mean there's a god who designed it, whereas if we're part of an infinite multiverse then it's pure logic that says we had no choice but be created like this out of pure chance.

 

Don't give the religious types ammo, man, what are you doing

 

Doesn't it make more sense to say there was a 1:1 chance of us observing a universe that has these physical laws? If the constants were all wrong and the universe collapsed instantly, or was smooth and featureless, or had no baryonic matter etc., who would be making these observations? No-one. The only universe possible for us to observe is a stable one such as this, ergo, the probability of the universe being like that, for us, is 1.

 

As for information destruction, if information disappears into a black hole never to be seen again, then technically it's destroyed, isn't it? If it's physically impossible to ever recover that information in the lifespan of the universe, I'd say that's destroyed! Also, black holes aren't a small compressed star, they are a zero width singularity in spacetime. So comparing them to ultracompressed neutron stars isn't really possible. Don't ask me how they end up like that though. Probably the Atkins diet or something.

[tbourner]

Doesn't it make more sense to say there was a 1:1 chance of us observing a universe that has these physical laws? If the constants were all wrong and the universe collapsed instantly, or was smooth and featureless, or had no baryonic matter etc., who would be making these observations? No-one. The only universe possible for us to observe is a stable one such as this, ergo, the probability of the universe being like that, for us, is 1.

I think the argument is that regardless of that principle, if there were only one universe it's unbelievably unlikely that it happened as it did. The idea that we only exist to say 'isn't it amazing that we exist' because it's the only universe we can exist in, only works if there have been countless universes existing one after the other and this one is the one we witness, or that there are countless other universes in existence now alongside this one.

 

As for information destruction, if information disappears into a black hole never to be seen again, then technically it's destroyed, isn't it? If it's physically impossible to ever recover that information in the lifespan of the universe, I'd say that's destroyed! Also, black holes aren't a small compressed star, they are a zero width singularity in spacetime. So comparing them to ultracompressed neutron stars isn't really possible. Don't ask me how they end up like that though. Probably the Atkins diet or something.

Well that's the problem, is that proven with some math that I can't get my head around? Why is it a 0 width singularity rather than a sphere of matter 1 micron diameter that weighs 28 billion trillion tons? The gravity of that object would be immense, how do we know it's not gravitating enough to hold light in? Why does it have to be infinitely small and inifinitely massive? If it were a finite size and mass then anything being drawn into it would still exist and wouldn't be destroyed (whether mere humans could find it again or not).

[C_Strike]

the idea of entropy and disorder explains the lifecycle of our universe for what i get..

from a uniform constant to a mass of disorganisation, slowly reverting back to a uniform constant. From out of the ordered singularity, the bigbang, came disorganisation. As planets blow up they lose matter as its shot out into the vaccum of space which impacts the size of the objects formed in the wake... after however many explosions and reformations the amount of available matter is greatly reduced and thus, so is the size of the object.. Stars are only formed when a stellar object attains a certain mass.. but at somepoint there isnt going to be enough matter to create fusion within the objects, the stars will die out never to burn again...Thats only a minute part of the story though as the energy and life of neutron stars and blackholes takes an unimagineable time to fizzle. There will be no stars, no light, no nothing other than darkness and the emtpy carcasses of what was once our universe.. even this will become more ordered and become a much more constant across the expanse of the universe until the point that nothing happens, everything is equally spread where ever you are

 

random fact that bemuses me about blackholes is that if it was theoretically possible to get close and orbit one, at some distance where light cant escape but can orbit the object, you could stand there and you would see the back of your head right in front of you, lol

[imi]

Erm, yeah, that's my question; why do they think energy/information is destroyed in a black hole:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

 

perhaps destroyed is the wrong word, maybe the information is presented in a different way.

[imi]

if we were only one universe it must mean there's a god who designed it, whereas if we're part of an infinite multiverse then it's pure logic that says we had no choice but be created like this out of pure chance.

 

why couldn't the creator create the multiverses?

[Ian C]

I think the argument is that regardless of that principle, if there were only one universe it's unbelievably unlikely that it happened as it did. The idea that we only exist to say 'isn't it amazing that we exist' because it's the only universe we can exist in, only works if there have been countless universes existing one after the other and this one is the one we witness, or that there are countless other universes in existence now alongside this one.

 

I've been thinking about these principals a lot lately for some reason, mainly as a refute to the idea there is a god, because I'm a troublemaker like that Now bear with me and enjoy tearing a hole in my postulation:

 

The existence of multiple other universes, ones that were, from a life point of view, a failure, cannot be visited, witnessed or observed by anything, so by that definition they are ultimately irrelevant. This universe could be a freak oneoff that had all the right numbers to support matter creation and life, or it could be one of an infinite collection. But it's impossible to prove or disprove either way. There is a technical term for this but I can't recall what it is. Something that isn't provable or rrefutable - Incompleteness theory perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

 

Anyway, the universe is by definition the encapsulation of absolutely everything in existence, so a different universe must therefore be utterly and completely detached from this one in every way. That means it's unreachable and unmeasurable, and so irrelevant to our universe.

 

If we could sense, detect, measure, or even somehow infer the existence of another universe, it MUST be connected in some fashion to ours, and therefore is automatically a part of our universe. That in turn means it is not in fact a separate universe, just a really hard to reach bit of ours.

 

So list as many other-universe theories as you like, you can't prove or refute any of them and they have zero bearing on our entirety of existence, so what's the point

 

The God thing springs from this. In order to interact with the universe, you must be a part of it. If you aren't a part of it, you can't, as described above, even infer its existence, never mind nail it together in 6 days flat. If you ARE a part of it, then you are subject to the laws of that universe. You might appear omnipotent because you can be anywhere at any time, create or destroy matter, manipulate the flow of time, whatever. But if you can do that as a god, the universe must have a structure and rules which support such abilities. And that means at some point, someone else will figure out how to do it. You're no god, you're just more in tune with the universe's rules and how to exploit them. And you can't have created it anyway, because you're a part of it - you have to be, in order to interact with it. And if you aren't a part of it, how do you even know it exists Tadaa, no god.

 

If you have an idea that, as imi says, the grand creator person sits somehow 'outside' the multiverses and spawns them off like blowing bubbles, there must be a connection between these multiverses, each other, and ultimately the creation realm. Otherwise, how does the information about each universe get transmitted? And if you have a connection from what we percieve as our universe to the creation realm, then really it's all just the one universe and once again, it's just that some bits are really hard to reach. So you end up in the same position outlined above, just that the playing field is exponentially larger. And of course, who created the creation realm?

 

Well that's the problem, is that proven with some math that I can't get my head around?

 

I had trouble working out the polarity issues of injectors yesterday, so I don't think I'll be able to meaningfully contribute on the maths front here I think spacetime breaks or something.

[tbourner]

Good stuff, Ian, but I think you're getting caught up on the words. UNIVERSE is just an (old) word, universal, singular, whole, oneness etc. With the invention of multiversal theories I think the meaning of the word is lost, maybe we need a new word.

I know what you're getting at however and I think in your terms the multiverse theories would be a part of the singular creation realm universe with lots of (multiverse) bubbles inside of it. So yes we could 'go to' all those other bubbles if we had the tech, as they must all be linked somehow. But the creation realm and the creator decides the rules of all those bubbles, so I don't think it's as clear cut as you're making out like they must be all more or less the same with the same rules - he makes the rules after all, there's nothing to stop him deciding that the creation realm is completely out of reach, and the bubble next to ours happens to be inside out so we'd all die if we managed to jump across.

 

Did you watch Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman? It was a bit slow but the last episode last Sunday was awesome! Going through creation possibilities, they were saying we have computers powerful enough to simulate movements of planets accurately, and in 50 years we could conceivably simulate the entire known universe. They went on to say everything we know is finite, there are no continuous data pieces as everything is made up of the constituent bosons etc. This is the same as the most realistic computer games where there is always a pixel if you go down deep enough. So if the universe is finite that means it's computable. Another nice link is the fact that you can have an entire world in a game yet you only see the bit you're in at the time - it's there but you can't see it or know what it's doing - this is the same in the real world where quantum theory shows you only know what's happening with the thing you're witnessing, anything not being witnessed is in many states at once, the same as the game.

The idea being we could effectively create a universe on a computer, and maybe we ARE the creator of our own universe!! Ooh spooky.