It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
it may be that the scientists will have to get back around to the many worlds interpetation soon. relativity itself does not forbid time travel. one way out of paradox for that is to say that any mucking about with history results in a divergent universe where the changes take place while the prime universe goes on as if the tampering never happened. the stop gap knee jerk causality ordering postulate or chronology protection postulate just do not have any theoretical support and borders on a quasi animistic religion or mysticism.
brazenalderpadrescorpio
Since information cannot come from nothing, I wonder if the creation of our universe is a paradox? I wonder if the creation of our universe from nothing would imply that the many-worlds theory is correct? I doubt it, since it would be emphatically stated by countless physicists as being correct. I wonder if anybody with a science background has any ideas on what I just said.
they might be but if they are it is not because of the information escaping. it would be because of the physics involved with such a dense state and such extremes of gravity and density and so on.
greencmp
reply to post by stormbringer1701
Interesting, since all of the matter and information is ultimately released back into the universe, could black holes be considered another state of matter?edit on 5-3-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)
Thank goodness you're talking about observation. I would love to see some observation because all the talk without experimental confirmation seems to lose its productivity at some point, though it did take a long time from proposing the Higgs to having the technology to be able to look for it.
stormbringer1701
this is a testable proposition. if thier prediction is verified then QM people can work backwards ....
Black holes have been a fact of science for several decades. they (as a system) have been "imaged" countless times by various astronomical instruments.
onequestion
Did they finally prove black holes exist?
If they didn't then uhh.... its like poetry i guess.
Arbitrageur
Thank goodness you're talking about observation. I would love to see some observation because all the talk without experimental confirmation seems to lose its productivity at some point, though it did take a long time from proposing the Higgs to having the technology to be able to look for it.
stormbringer1701
this is a testable proposition. if thier prediction is verified then QM people can work backwards ....
INANEWS
Blackholes seem to prevent star formationA new research has found that massive elliptical galaxies in the nearby Universe contain plenty of cold gas, but still they fail to produce new stars as jets from the central supermassive black hole heat or stir up the gas.
inadailynews.com...ed it on 5-3-2014 by INANEWS because: (no reason given)
actually the black hole info thing is just ancilliary to the thread. the real thrust is that given that this mechanism is real and the predicted gamma spectrum is found then QG finally has something that it can observe to actually confirm and solidify CG.
ChaoticOrder
Nothing in this article really seems to be new information, the theory that space can reach a maximum energy density is not a new idea and the idea of a "bounce" effect happening is not new either, this is all part of loop quantum gravity.
What I don't understand though is why we can't just be satisfied with Hawking Radiation and call it a day. If the black hole can evaporate and release all the energy it consumed then what is the problem? Just because the energy it releases is jumbled up doesn't mean we have an information paradox, unless you want to believe in "quantum determinism", which seems like quite a stupid thing to believe when quantum events can be labeled as "truly random" events. Why is it so hard to believe that existing quantum information cannot be jumbled up in a truly random fashion? I see no paradox to begin with...edit on 5/3/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)