This is actually a bit of a continuation from my earlier post on the multiverse and additional dimensions theory, and is basically supporting evidence for the multiverse (which is itself evidence for additional dimensions).
To avoid things getting messy, I’m going to break this into three subheadings.
Stephen Hawking:
You can easily do a quick wikipedia on him if you want to find out the more mundane details of his life. I’m just going to quickly mention some relevant things about him.
Hawking has a motor neurone disease related to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) which has confined him to a wheelchair. As he is almost fully paralyzed, he communicates with facial twitches and a speech device where he enters types the words he wants to say by scrolling across a virtual keyboard with his eyes. This condition alone is proof of his genius as he rationalises complex theoretical physics in his mind without the benefit of being able to write things down. Honestly, I can’t stress enough how amazing that is. I hated 4 unit maths in high school and I had textbooks, the internet and calculators to rely on. His peers have said that Hawking works on intuition that is freakishly accurate, as if he is in tune with the universe in the same way that Einstein and Newton were.
Hawking’s black hole equation combined separate major fields of physics into one elegant formula, the first time (and only time to my knowledge) that separate fields of physics have been unified. Those of you who know a bit about physics will know why this is a big deal – there are many types of physics and they have never been unified under one single model before (which would be known as the theory of everything). The Hawking-Bekenstein entropy equation is:
Where S is entropy from thermodynamics, c is the constant for the speed of light from Einstein’s work, k is the Boltzmann constant, G is Newton’s constant for gravity, h is the Planck constant from quantum physics, and A is the area of the black hole.
Not only is this a combination of different fields of physics, it is a simple equation (which is considered mathematically beautiful, like Einstein’s e=mc^2).
The last thing I want to mention are a few of his theories that are relevant to this post. First, he provided mathematical proof for the beginning of the universe (the big bang), he not only described the mechanism of black holes mathematically, but defined many of the laws governing them (such as the event horizon, which is the region around the black hole which if you enter, there is no escape), and he also predicted that black holes would evaporate over time.
The Information Paradox:
The Information Paradox was something Hawking came to based on his work on black holes. Black holes break everything down into subatomic particles and suck them into the core of its gravity – a singularity (defined as a point that is infinitely small, infinitely dense, with an infinite gravity). The gravitational force of a black hole is so strong that not even light can escape. The implication of this is that whatever is sucked into a black hole is lost forever (or rather, it is stuck in the black hole forever).
However, Hawking later proved that black holes would evaporate over time. This is related to two facts: first, black holes emit radiation (a form of energy) and second, E=mc^2. Einstein’s equation means that energy and mass are essentially the same thing, just in different forms (you can mathematically represent energy/mass as a function of the other). What this means is that if black holes emit energy, they need to burn mass to do so; thus if a black hole runs out of mass (given that it runs out of stuff to suck in and burns out its core), it will evaporate.
Why was this huge news to the science world? Because the laws of physics (conservation of mass and energy) state that you cannot destroy mass/energy, only change its form. Information is “coded” into particles, and can never be lost. A visual representation of this would be if I tear a piece of paper to shreds. If I have all the pieces still, and a knowledge of how they fit together, I could theoretically recreate the original paper. The same applies to everything in the universe – if I burn a tree inside a containment unit, I would have everything that tree (and the fire) was made out of inside that containment unit. Theoretically, I could use those ingredients to remake the tree. However, Hawking’s proof of black hole evaporation violated this most fundamental law. If a black hole disappeared, what happened to all the information it absorbed? It would disappear with the black hole, a clear violation of the conservation of mass/energy. In essence, Hawking described black holes as huge cosmic machines that went around erasing parts of the universe and proclaimed that parts of the universe were missing as a result. Physicists were mind boggled and needed to disprove this theory. Why? Because the implications were that if black holes could violate this law, then the law was no longer a law of the universe. If it was no longer a law, that means that information anywhere in the universe could potentially be erased, and not just inside black holes. Further, at this time more black holes were discovered – there were supermassive black holes and micro black holes. There could even be micro black holes existing in your room as you read this. If black holes have the power to erase information, how can you say anything you know or see or feel or believe is real? Nothing is certain if everything is impermanent. This caused a huge fuss and was known as the Information Paradox.
Later, a theoretical physicist, Leonard Susskind came up with an alternative theory to solve the Information Paradox. The science world breathed a sigh of relief, but Hawking was determined to prove Susskind was wrong.
Unfortunately, at this point Hawking’s ALS got even worse. He was hospitalised but miraculously, he survived and went back to work. By now, he was so paralyzed that he had to get a student to help him work. Hawking would feed him ideas and the student would do the calculations and try to prove the concepts. As Hawking’s ALS got worse, his work became frustratingly slow. Now, his student tries to anticipate what Hawking wants to say (Hawking types the first few letters of a word and he guesses what word Hawking means).
Anyway, after getting out of hospital, Hawking went to a renown physics conference and made a public statement. He admitted that he had been wrong – information was not erased. However, he also declared Susskind wrong and claimed to have solved the paradox himself. I haven’t read this paper (it’s quite recent and he hasn’t provided mathematical proof yet), but from what I’ve gathered, his solution is as followed: information is not erased because it is transmitted to an alternate universe. The multiverse theory predicts an infinite number of universes, and inevitably, some of these universes will have no black holes. If there are no black holes, there is no way for information to be lost (this is a logic loop similar to time travel – if the cause of the problem doesn’t exist, you can’t have a problem in the first place). Basically, information will be transmitted through universes until it reaches a universe with no black hole, and since there is no black hole, the information can’t be lost.
Progress is ridiculously slow now – Hawking can only put out a few words a minute. Personally, I think it would be an astounding tragedy (especially in Hawking’s mind) if he becomes fully paralyzed and unable to spread his knowledge to the world. What would be more horrible was if he proved the existence of other universes but was unable to tell us. Imagine being trapped in your own mind with a universe shaking idea, fully proven, but unable to tell anybody around you.
Implications and the Multiverse Theory:
I really hope Hawking survives long enough to fully prove his new theory. It would be a tragedy for him to die with this work uncompleted as it would be definitive proof of a multiverse (because a multiverse would be necessary for the laws of physics to remain absolute).
How does this relate to my previous post? Well, as a quick refresher, I recently thought of the idea (which other scientists have also supported) that every singularity contains a universe. The reason for this is because our universe originated from a singularity that caused the big bang. Logically, all singularities have the potential to big bang and spew out its contents (a universe). There are singularities at the core of every black hole, meaning that there are hundreds of millions of universes inside our own universe, and that our own universe could just be the core of a black hole of an even greater universe (which would, by necessity, have more dimensions than us).
By the way, a quick note on the dimensions; further support for my suggestion that even more dimensions exist (and that our universe belongs to a universe with more dimensions) can be found in quantum mechanics and string theory. These two branches of physics study predict, by necessity, the existence of at least 11 dimensions. I think the fact that we’re working on string theory and alternate dimensions can be likened to the “fourth wall” in theatre – the characters of the play should not be aware of the audience’s existence but sometimes they “break the fourth wall” and hint that they do acknowledge an audience’s existence.
Back to the implications though: I believe in my previous post I suggested that the matter (or information) sucked in by a black hole is used to create a new (and smaller) universe. I made this post without thinking of Hawking’s multiverse, but the two concepts coincide well. Hawking states that by necessity, these other universes must exist to contain information that is taken from our universe. That is tantamount to what I said, that these alternate universes contain matter (information) from our current universe.
Essentially, I was beaten to goal again – this time Hawking came up with the idea before me. This stuff happens inevitably, and I admit, much of my knowledge is inspired by Hawking, but I can’t help but feel like I’m travelling in a rut because I’m arriving at the same conclusions as others. Breakthroughs need radical thinking that forges a whole new path or the thinker will inevitably run into the same dead-end as someone before them. This is way out of my depth already (I have long since lost any mathematical reasoning and have been relying on theoretical physics to rationalise my conclusions). I eagerly await Hawking’s work and am filled with admiration at the thought that even now, while I write this blog post, Hawking is painstakingly putting out a couple of words a minute to his student who is so close and yet so far from proving a multiverse.
The Sceptical Prophet 
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 31, 2012 at 3:08 am
peyami
Reblogged this on peyami.
July 31, 2012 at 5:43 am
scepticalprophet
Thanks =]
July 31, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Usualfool
First, I certainly hope that engineers finish the special device they’ve created to translate Hawking’s brain waves into text. I also would like to know what mind-boggling thoughts he has in that super-powered noggin of his.
However, I can’t help myself again: “Information is not erased because it is transmitted to an alternate universe.” This would be impossible to observe, verify, or even falsify for half a dozen reasons, leaving it outside the purview of science, and its convenience alone (that it leaves other extant understandings intact) isn’t evidence either.
August 2, 2012 at 2:16 am
scepticalprophet
Usualfool: I hope they finish the device too! And I hope Hawking survives long enough – he was meant to die a long time ago and no other ALS patient has survived this long.
As for the transmission of information to an alternate universe – this can be observed. Hawking proposes “baby universes” in “fake time” that reconnect with our own universe through black holes. This both explains the quantum mechanical jump (where electrons and protons appear to teleport) and can be observed in the universe (theoretically – if x amount of information is absorbed by a black hole, x amount should be released again somewhere else in the universe). While this would be incredibly difficult to measure in the universe, it’s quite likely that an artificial micro black hole could be used to measure information teleportation between universes. The LHC probably can’t reach the level of output required, but a larger particle accelerator might. In a controlled experiment, if we feed the micro black hole a known amount of information then let it evaporate, that information should, at some point, re-emerge in the exact same amount through another micro black hole.
This is speculation for the future though, but it is quite interesting to think about!
August 1, 2012 at 10:09 am
S
The article on Hawking’s information paradox is incredibly biased. Hawkings theory on black hole information paradox (BHIP) is not accepted. Next Gerard ‘t Hooft proposed the Holographic Principle which counteracts the BHIP, Leonard Susskind adapted it to the String Theory model. Where are your sources on this new information by Hawking? I love Hawking, but your telling of this theory is very biased and goes against the currently accepted theories without stating that. Here is another theory on the entropy of black holes and their physical makeup.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2011/aug/26/1
Here is the Holographic Principle: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0203101
Further evidence of the Holographic Principle: http://scienceblogs.com/purepedantry/2009/01/16/evidence-for-the-holographic-p/
Here is more against Hawking’s original proposed theory: http://matthew-rose.blogspot.com/2008/09/hawking-black-hole-information-paradox.html
Furthermore, despite your interpretation of the multiverse or this new Hawking paper, Black Holes are created through supernovas with force so powerful they collapse onto themselves, if somehow you got to a universe that did not have any black holes, that would mean either of two things:
A. No star has gone supernova yet to form any black holes, plausible, but black holes are still inevitable.
B. The universe has no stars. <- lol
In summary, this article attempts to claim a theory Hawking proposed in the 1970s til this happened in 2004 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6151-hawking-cracks-black-hole-paradox.html when he claimed that he 'solved it'. This also connects with the fuzzball theory linked above. As of current, the Holographic Principle is what is accepted in that information is NOT lost when it goes into a black hole.
This explains very well the distinction between the two theories in simple terms.
P.S. You don't have to worry much about Hawking not being able to convey his thoughts to the world: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528733.300-stephen-hawking-trials-device-that-reads-his-mind.html
I've seen this machine in action and it works pretty darn well.
August 2, 2012 at 2:46 am
The Sceptical Prophet
My internet is capped so I can’t provide links right now. I’m just going to give you some basic information. You’re not wrong but you’re wrong when you infer that I’m wrong – this is theoretical physics and your opinion is no more accurate than mine since we’re both not fully correct. In fact, I think your opinion is somewhat less informed.
I like how your opening statement is directly from Wikipedia. I guess you missed this part in the Wiki post: “This work showed that the black hole information paradox is resolved when quantum gravity is described in an unusual string-theoretic way.”
Want to know what that means? First of all, quantum gravity is a theory that has never been unified, and therefore does not exist yet (or may never exist as they are incompatible). Second, not only is string-theory not a fully formed theory, the Holographic Principle uses unusual string-theory practice. The aggregate of this sentence alone means that the Holographic Principle is no more accepted than Hawking’s theory. Keep in mind, we’re talking about theoretical physics here. The argument “not accepted” is a moot point – none of anything in this field is accepted yet for lack of sufficient evidence.
Also, the article was not biased because it was entitled Hawking’s Information Paradox, not Susskind’s Solution to the Information Paradox. I was writing only of Hawking’s works, and even so, I still mentioned Leonard Susskind if you read the article carefully. Also, I specifically said that Hawking claimed that Susskind was wrong. This is not a biased article, it’s just one focused on Hawking’s work. At no point did I say Hawking’s new theory was absolutely correct.
Despite championing the Holographic Principle (which was Susskind linking ‘t Hooft’s theory to String Theory and the New M-Theory), you don’t seem to understand both String Theory and the Holographic Principle (or maybe you took the information at face value and didn’t contemplate the following). String theory proposes at least 11 alternate dimensions, as well as a multiverse. Basic knowledge of the multiverse suggests an infinite amount of alternate universes with an infinite amount of possibilities. Is it so hard to believe that somewhere in this infinite amount of universes exists one without a black hole? Because that’s pretty much axiomatic with the concept of multiverses. Second, how do you know supernovae can form black holes in other dimensions? How can you even propose that gravity exists in all other dimensions with the exact same effects? How do you know matter can be compressed to a singularity in other dimensions? Is it even possible to compress anything in a zero dimensional plane (everything exists already as a singularity because 0D is just a single point)?
The reason why the Holographic Principle was accepted over the Information Paradox was because scientists will naturally gravitate towards a theory that doesn’t violate the laws of physics. That doesn’t make the Holographic Principle right, and in fact, the science community does not consider the Holographic Principle to be right – just more right than suggesting information disappears. Hawking hasn’t had time to prove his latest theory yet.
By the way, if you’re not just a Wikipedia scientist and have some basis for scientific knowledge, I can provide you a few problems with the Holographic Principle for you to think about (besides the quantum gravity and string theory issues I’ve already mentioned); I’ll keep this short since this reply has gotten long (which is another reason I didn’t mention Susskind in the article – it would have been five pages if I had).
First of all, the Holographic Principle is speculative because it assumes that space-time is granular, which has no good empirical evidence yet. You may try to refute this claim by saying Craig Hogan’s holometer tested the Holographic Principle, but experts have already said that experiment is completely off-target as it doesn’t even address the Holographic Principle properly. Also, the principle itself is not well defined – amount of information, communication channel and boundary of a region are speculative as there is no clear way to measure bits (unit of information) at the event horizon and even proposed measurements of this are conflicting (Area/4 Planck Length^2 conflicts with the statistical number from the Shannon-Boltzmann entropy NkT); nor can R (which is used to measure the boundary) be measured in curved space-time (as you should know, space time around a black hole is curved as hell). Finally, holography doesn’t explain all situations and is thus inherently incomplete as a scientific theory – for example holography in a de Sitter space may require a dual theory gravity.
That New Scientist article you linked mentions Hawking will present his latest findings in a conference “next week”. Some of my information is from what he said in that conference. The rest of the information is from a variety of papers and documentaries, as well as first hand testimonials from PhD physicists that I have the privilege of knowing (due to my parents’ profession). The rest is my own logical conclusion based on the given knowledge. I don’t claim to be a celebrated physicist so the bits that are my own are bound to be picked at – but my reasoning is based on strong evidence.
Remember, again, that I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying you’re wrong when you say I’m wrong because we’re both sitting in the realm of theoretical physics. If you’re too prideful to concede me this point I may be bothered to provide a Harvard referenced list of my sources but that will have to wait until my internet uncaps – right now even loading google takes me ages.
August 2, 2012 at 5:44 am
S
I am not saying that you are wrong; I am saying that you are misleading readers into believing Hawking’s theory is more the consensus than Susskind’s theory. Yes, when I named Gerard `t Hooft and Leonard Susskind, that is from wiki, but that is because you did not make that distinction. Both of these theories are hardly the work of single persons acting alone.
I already know how quantum gravity is described using the holographic principle. On that note, “lack of sufficient evidence” this IS theoretical physics, to prove this without a doubt, for this to become experimental physics you would have to be able to observe inside the black hole, which is impossible. My response to your topic was not to say that you are wrong, you misinterpreted there, but that if someone were to read your article and had little to no knowledge of the other theories, because you downplay them so much, the readers would be convinced that this is how it is.
On alternate dimensions, aren’t you doing the same by simply assuming another universe would simply not follow the laws of physics? In the thought experiment voiced by Susskind he mentioned that with our lack of knowledge of what is outside of our own universe, it is possible out own universe could be the singularity of a black hole within another universe. Continuing that thought process in addition to the multiverse theory, how can you say that this cannot happen? You’re right in saying that scientists do believe the Holographic Principle is simply more correct than the Information Paradox, however again this is theoretical physics, there is no absolute, there is simply what makes more sense and what is more logical.
You are as much of a Wikipedia scientist as I am, these are not your theories either, nor is the equations or work or even your rebuttals against the Holographic Principle. In fact a quick google search can come up with the same responses against the Holographic Principle that you have listed. We are both on an even playing field; you are no more a physicist than I am.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=435008 Is that where you got your response from?
Anyway, regardless of what you have listed against the Holographic Principle, you have said yourself, that it is assumed more correct than the Information Paradox and in theoretical physics, that is the best you can get. Simply listing critiques of others on why the Holographic Principle does not explain everything, does not mean it is not correct. Sure, it may not explain everything, but this is an ongoing process.
I am not here to argue why one theory is correct over the other, however if that were the case, the information paradox has a lot more holes (no pun intended). it goes against the Law of Conservation of mass, simply saying it goes to another universe, is not good enough. You are championing a theory that was discredited in 2004. That article I linked with hawking saying he will present his findings “next week”; I linked that on purpose to show, not saying that your sources are incorrect or that they have no basis, but to show that your sources and by extension your conclusion are OUTDATED. I will concede that I was impetuous in saying you were wrong, because not everything is wrong. However, work has since changed direction gravely, especially in the Information Paradox theory. See: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/a-solution-to-t/
If you want to provide me with sources, I welcome it, without them, I would simply label you as a plagiarizer. One condition, 2010 or newer sources only (with few exceptions).
August 2, 2012 at 5:55 am
S
Ah, I probably should have added this in there: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4249192.stm
Near the bottom it says Hawking claimed he could prove the OPPOSITE of what happens to the information, from his initial theory (your article). Hawking himself said he was wrong before, so why do you continue to disagree?
August 6, 2012 at 6:34 am
scepticalprophet
“Anyway, regardless of what you have listed against the Holographic Principle, you have said yourself, that it is assumed more correct than the Information Paradox and in theoretical physics, that is the best you can get.”
That quote by itself speaks volumes and I am now quite certain you have no idea what I was talking about in the blog post. I never said the Information Paradox was correct. Both Susskind and Hawking have already proven that.
Then you say the Information Paradox has more holes in it? Now I’m absolutely sure you don’t know what you’re talking about. Of course the Information Paradox is wrong. I was talking about Hawking’s solution to his Information Paradox, which is a new theory that he hasn’t published much yet (I only know about it from a few of his conferences and a documentary). The purpose of this article was to give credence to my own play-thing of a theory, it had nothing to do with whether Hawking or Susskind is right.
And no, the physics forum is not where I got my response from. The only thing in that link that has the same information as what I said is that “it assumes space time is granular”. If you knew as much about the Holographic Principle as you claimed, you would realise that this is a fundamental premise for the entire principle. If space-time was not granular (thus being smooth) there would be no way to project a hologram at all. Holograms require granular surfaces (in case you didn’t know).
“In the thought experiment voiced by Susskind he mentioned that with our lack of knowledge of what is outside of our own universe, it is possible out own universe could be the singularity of a black hole within another universe. Continuing that thought process in addition to the multiverse theory, how can you say that this cannot happen?”
I don’t know why you said that because that’s just what I said. Now you’re arguing the same point as me – that our universe is the singularity of a greater universe’s black hole.
References: (Some of these were for the related blog posts, not just this one)
Face-to-face conversations with Dr. Li Mo and Dr. Dimitri Alexiev from ANSTO and Dr. Philippe Cassette from LNHB.
An Introduction into the Feynman Path Integral (Grosche, Christian; 1993)
BBC Information Paradox Documentary
Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays (Hawking, Stephen; 1993)
Hawking Cracks Black Hole Paradox (Hogan, Jenny; New Scientist; 2004)
Holographic Principle Documentary (not sure who the producer was; it was on TV)
Imaginary Time and Baby Universes (Hawking, Stephen; 2007)
Information in the Holographic Universe (Bekenstein, Jacob D.; Scientific American 2003)
Interview with Curt Cutler (Curt Cutler; Albert Einstein Institute; 2004)
Introduction to AdS/CFT (Kirsch, Ingo; 2012)
Reality and the Extended Mind Documentary
Text of Baby Universes, Children of Black Holes (Hawking, Stephen)
Transcript of 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation in Dublin
August 6, 2012 at 8:19 am
S
You seem a little lost here, so adamant in trying to keep up your appearance, but you’re just being very pretentious. Why can’t you just admit you’re wrong here? Perhaps it’s my fault for not being clear enough, or jumping the gun in my response to you, I probably should have spent a little more time on it.
To recap this started when I skimmed over your post and said: ‘oh wow, that’s cool, but he’s wrong on one point. Information isn’t destroyed in a black hole’
To which your response was to attempt to belittle me and specifically saying ‘I can give the mathematical formulas that prove me right’
What I’m getting at here is, the point of ALL of my responses has been one thing:
>>> INFORMATION IS NOT DESTROYED IN A BLACK HOLE <<<
I made it bigger for you, maybe you won't miss it this time. I really don't give a crap about your knowledge on physics and frankly I'm really tired of this game. And btw, the forum post I linked you to, I linked it because you had copied a particular post almost word for word.
The post: "Speculative. It presumes spacetime is granular…"
and you: "…speculative because it assumes that space-time is granular"
Regardless, let us ignore that for now. My original point was before and still is that information is not destroyed in a black hole, which is what you argued with me BEFORE I posted here. I assumed everyone already knew that it wasn't destroyed, I didn't understand why you were arguing with me at the time. I did a small amount of research and found out it was a theory hawking discarded in 2004 (given that its an old theory and that it wasn't widely accepted by the community, its no surprise I didn't know about it), also not to be confused with his research as a whole, which you seem to be trying to shift dialogue this into. All of my posts, especially talking about the Holographic Theory, was not to oppose Hawking's theories (new), but to show you that information was not destroyed. His new theories also support that information is not destroyed. To reiterate from my previous post, Hawking went on to make a claim that same year, that he can now prove the OPPOSITE, that information is NOT destroyed. Seeing as how you keep arguing using Hawking's research as your support and given that he changed directions on his research, all of your arguments are then void. I hope there was no confusion this time as to what my point was.
Thank you, for expanding my knowledge on physics, I had not previously known about that area of Hawking's research, this has been a wonderful learning experience. I do not wish to continue this discussion any longer, because you seem too proud to admit that you had made a mistake. Take care.
p.s. Information moving to another dimension does not constitute destruction.
August 7, 2012 at 5:58 am
scepticalprophet
Wow, you’re making such a fool of yourself right now. For the third time, I never said information is destroyed in a black hole. Get that through your thick skull. The post was introducing the Information Paradox and then I specifically mentioned that both Susskind and Hawking provided solutions to the paradox. That obviously means the paradox is wrong. I have no idea why you have this stubborn notion that I was trying to tell you that information is destroyed. You’re either illiterate or never bothered to read the article.
Here, I’ll make it larger for you.
>>>I NEVER SAID THAT INFORMATION IS DESTROYED IN BLACK HOLES<<<
Seriously, read properly if you want to critique because anyone else who's read this article is just going to see you making three long comments about something completely off the mark. Here it is again: I never said the Information Paradox was valid. Maybe reminding you four times in the same reply will get it through your head.
Also, how else do you want me to say that Susskind's theory is only speculative because it assumes that space-time is granular. There's not other way to say it – that's the specific words Susskind's own paper uses. GRANULAR.
You are absolutely ridiculous for wasting so much time proving my point. I've not only said in the original post that the Information Paradox isn't true, I also mentioned it twice to you in my replies. I have nothing to say to you anymore. I was right from the beginning and you just wasted both of our times trying to argue that I was wrong and then giving me my information right back to me.
September 4, 2012 at 3:12 am
S
I’m making a fool out of myself? I’m not the one LYING to prove myself right. Look you pretentious brat, I was talking with Jenna and she was talking with you. She showed me your article, I said cool “but he’s wrong, energy is not destroyed” At this point you had her argue for you that *I* was wrong, your words there were “I can give him the mathematical formulas to prove my case”. That is what YOU said, because YOU were arguing that energy is destroyed, my whole reason to come here was because you said that I was wrong and that energy is destroyed. My whole argument from the beginning starting from the holographic principle had only one singular point, a most modern theory that claims that energy is not destroyed. If you say that you did not say those words when talking with your girlfriend, you are just a worthless liar. At least Hawking was man enough to admit he made a mistake.
September 4, 2012 at 8:37 am
scepticalprophet
Wow so butthurt. I still have no idea what you’re talking about. If you read the article (as I’ve advised multiple times), you’ll see that I quite clearly said that energy is not destroyed. The entire point of the article was to mention Hawking’s solution to the information paradox being the existence of a multiverse. You seem very confused about what you’re trying to argue. If it makes it clearer for you, let me say for the umpteenth time that I never asserted energy is destroyed. That’s a clear violation of the conservation of energy. Does that settle things for you? You’re basically trying to say the same thing as I am, except you’re being very upset about it for some odd reason. Like you think I’m disagreeing with you or something? That’s why I said you’re making a fool of yourself – you don’t even realise that you’re trying to argue against a point that nobody ever made.
October 4, 2012 at 1:42 pm
katesisco
As an unscientific mind, I would ask why since energy is drawn into a black hole, it cannot be returned which would negate the necessity for string theory, multi verse.
Let’s say that gas hold the photons in a maze inside which it continuously laps. The photons are not torn apart but restrained . Which would explain why LT(light terminus) starbits grow by sucking up more photons. This also neatly complies with the second Law.
Why not expansion of local space which displaces and compresses the existing gases when the LT starbit fails to grow and loses energy?
This energy being the return of matter in obedience to the Second Law.
What holds the energy in? Pressurized magnetized gas.
This may be the answer to why M22 holds two black holes instead of the theorized one.
October 5, 2012 at 12:59 am
scepticalprophet
Hmm, I’m not sure how growth by sucking up photons constitutes entropy. The last I heard about M22 was that it was unconfirmed whether it was really two black holes (thus casting doubt on the black hole ejection theory). Kulkarni posited the absence of x-rays as one reason why the discovery did not actually point to black holes. Personally, I’m unsure of my stance on the discovery and will probably wait for more evidence before I reach a conclusion.
As for your premise, there are actually theories on that. Poplawski uses the Einstein-Rosen bridge model to postulate such a thing (white holes). It’s based on a lack of a specified time parameter in the general theory of relativity to suggest that if matter can collapse into a black hole, the reverse is also possible (matter being released by one). Hawking has also likened our universe to a black hole working in reverse, so I wouldn’t so far as to say “energy cannot be returned”, but that there is still quite a bit of discussion over the nature of singularities and black holes. It’s not helpful that we can never experiment on a black hole, because one cannot observe anything inside the event horizon without actually being inside the event horizon (leading to death by spaghettification), and that if a black hole was within human reach, we would all be dead anyway. It’ll be a tough problem to tackle, and maybe one that will only reach absolute consensus if quantum gravity is reconciled.