Stephen Hawking believes he’s solved a huge mystery about black holes

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Question!

"What does God want with a Starship?" (sorry, always wanted opportunity to quote Shatner)

Actually, what is" Hawkings Radiation" ? Who granted this nomenclature, and why?

I thought blackholes never fell in on themselves as the only thing to escape them is gravity?

I believe 5StarOracle actuually meant to say "Hawking Radiation", named after Steven Hawking who theorized its existence and what it portends in regard to information loss.

Hawking radiation is what happens when members of a particle pair find themselves on opposite sides of the event horizon. this can happen various ways. in virtual pair creation near the boundary limit. or tunneling during random motions of single particles. over time if more stuff is getting out than getting in a black hole will evaporate. sometimes this takes cosmic time scales to occur for large black holes. for quantum level black holes this takes place before the existence of the black hole can normally be noted.

later though Hawking modified his idea of the structure and mechanics of a black hole event horizon in an attempt to resolve the firewall paradox. so i don't know where all of this stands exactly but such a modification obviously would not eliminate the hawking radiation mechanism just alter its details.

originally posted by: Bicent76
a reply to: Kapusta

sure we can observe the anomaly light years away, but to say we understand why, and how they exist, and what their purpose as it is a fact, is vanity!

As I said we have no damn idea what these anomalies are we can record their decay and assume what they are but NO ONE on this planet HAS ever seen a BLACK HOLE....

I think I have said enough about this crap..

Let us discover 100 percent of our planet and all it's species and work on curing these diseases killing our kids then we can reach for the stars....

Our tools against the ills of our world are scientific.

For instance, our understandings of atomic decay, critical to radiation therapies, are verified and informed by astronomical data.

To close your eyes and mind to the overall scope of science is to leave out of our knowledge aspects that do affect us directly.

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: Kapusta

Is a black hole a big bang of another universe? anyone?

like monopoles there are various "species" of black hole model.
some rotate. others don't. the consequences of these differ from a cosmological point of view. speaking of cosmology some lead to nothing, some lead to another universe, some lead to a squishy point, some lead to a white hole, some lead to a white hole in a reversed time... Some allow surviving inside. some don't. some allow escape (albeit just barely.) some don't.

it all depends on the model.

originally posted by: AnteBellum
I thought this theory was what that other famous physicist came up with first. He started out as a plumber and had some type of arguement with Hawkins over this very issue until Hawkins finally conceded to its validity. . .

Can't remember his name, sorry.

Leonard Susskind was the one you are thinking of. He didn't actually invent Hawking's solution first, but along with John Preskill, Kip Thorne and Gerard 't Hooft, suggested that information was not destroyed in a Black Hole (when Hawking thought it might be).

Hawking's discovery of Hawking radiation and the holographic theory (that imprints 3D information on a 2D surface like the event horizon) allows for an explanation of how information would be retained and resolves the information paradox.

for the scientifically literate: Do not snicker at the mention of monopoles. we all know there must be at least one in the history of the universe. the question is are there any now. and if so what type(s?) we have already seen several "monopoles" as emergent behavior in solid state condensed matter physics recently (both in spin ice and another apparatus) plus now the magnetic shield "wormhole." Arguably; an artificial monopole is a better description of that thing.

a reply to: chr0naut

what I like to ponder is why not search event horizons for emergency transmissions, I think it would be one of the best places to look for such a signal...

If one was sent I assume the signal would go on forever or atleast the majority of the life of said black hole, then I can't help but wonder if you would have just as long to attempt a rescue...

8)

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Kapusta

Earth has an event horizon. Anything that gets too close to this planet depending on mass and velocity gets sucked in. The event horizon of a so-called black hole is simply much more exaggerated.

Like I said, there are objects in space that seem to absorb light, but thats a long way froms saying that they are gate ways to another realm.

Maybe you're right, but until we can test these theories, it simply isn't scientific.

The Earth is not massive enough to have an event horizon in the sense of how we understand a black hole. At the 'event horizon' (Swartzchild radius) the velocity due to gravity, of infalling matter, is faster than the speed of light. This means that even photons of light itself are captured and cannot get out.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: chr0naut

what I like to ponder is why not search event horizons for emergency transmissions, I think it would be one of the best places to look for such a signal...

If one was sent I assume the signal would go on forever or atleast the majority of the life of said black hole, then I can't help but wonder if you would have just as long to attempt a rescue...

8)

Really good idea, but as Hawking explains, the information is made turbulent and would not be likely to be identifiable.

Also, how would we mount a rescue? Even light can't get away. Anything made of matter that approached the event horizon would become 'spaghettified' as gravitational tidal forces became greater than all other forces, pulling the very atoms apart.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: chr0naut

what I like to ponder is why not search event horizons for emergency transmissions, I think it would be one of the best places to look for such a signal...

If one was sent I assume the signal would go on forever or atleast the majority of the life of said black hole, then I can't help but wonder if you would have just as long to attempt a rescue...

8)

Really good idea, but as Hawking explains, the information is made turbulent and would not be likely to be identifiable.

Also, how would we mount a rescue? Even light can't get away. Anything made of matter that approached the event horizon would become 'spaghettified' as gravitational tidal forces became greater than all other forces, pulling the very atoms apart.

spaghetification only occurs if the space curvature gradient is abrupt. for gradual gradients spaghettifcation is delayed or does not occur at all. so your peril depends on the size of the black hole (inversely at that .) also the peril depends on how the blackhole was created. the model it conforms to. spinning black holes allow the avoidance of the singularity and therefore at least survival and potentially exit. some models of black hole lead naturally to some form of exit which may or may not be in this universe and may or may not be at the present time coordinates. others allow for the temporary negation of the event horizon which would allow escape through ordinary means.

Is this a new insight into the holographic principle? Because I distinctly remember both he, as well as Sitchin (who I believe was first to challenge Hawking's old thinking on this,) and others talking about this years and years ago. (Read the book "The Black Hole Wars." It's pretty interesting.)

The theory that the resolution to the paradox is that to outside observers the information is "smeared" or "scrambled" at the 2D boundary of the event horizon (and even that this could apply to the entirety of the universe potentially) while to the one in the black hole it is crushed at the singularity, isn't a new one.

So is this a new insight or mathematical proof of the concept, or... ? Just seeking clarification. (As a dumb layperson.)

Peace.

originally posted by: AceWombat04
Is this a new insight into the holographic principle? Because I distinctly remember both he, as well as Sitchin (who I believe was first to challenge Hawking's old thinking on this,) and others talking about this years and years ago. (Read the book "The Black Hole Wars." It's pretty interesting.)

The theory that the resolution to the paradox is that to outside observers the information is "smeared" or "scrambled" at the 2D boundary of the event horizon (and even that this could apply to the entirety of the universe potentially) while to the one in the black hole it is crushed at the event horizon, isn't a new one.

So is this a new insight or mathematical proof of the concept, or... ? Just seeking clarification. (As a dumb layperson.)

Peace.

Wow. You nailed it. In fact it might be that to 'those' inside, the information is not irreparably crushed, but somehow able to be interpreted but again, not to those outside where the information is scrambled.

a reply to: Maverick7

Slight addendum: I meant to say crushed at the singularity (or, as you say, intact but irretrievable.)

But my main question is: is this really new, or just a refinement of the existing theory that already expounded on this years ago?

Peace.

originally posted by: AceWombat04
Is this a new insight into the holographic principle? Because I distinctly remember both he, as well as Sitchin (who I believe was first to challenge Hawking's old thinking on this,) and others talking about this years and years ago. (Read the book "The Black Hole Wars." It's pretty interesting.)

The theory that the resolution to the paradox is that to outside observers the information is "smeared" or "scrambled" at the 2D boundary of the event horizon (and even that this could apply to the entirety of the universe potentially) while to the one in the black hole it is crushed at the singularity, isn't a new one.

So is this a new insight or mathematical proof of the concept, or... ? Just seeking clarification. (As a dumb layperson.)

Peace.

Susskind, not Sitchin.

And the time dilation involved also removes temporal information at the event horizon, the holographic encoding smears multi dimensional information, creating a static image of the that information. Information isn't lost, but it is un-crackably encrypted.

I thought we already theorized this... this is what I thought anyway.. is this new somehow? If so.. then I am behind, because this is what I thought the theory already was..

perhaps slightly offtopic, but here's an idea.

- build a transmitter based on quantum entanglement (some say it's already been done - astroengineer.wordpress.com...)
- build a probe with such transmitter, able to withstand as much pressure and radiation as possible
- send it to a black hole

the question remains, will quantum entanglement work across event horizon? if so, this could get interesting - not counting the distance to the nearest black hole, but perhaps if the probe would be made with nanotechnology and it would be sent into a small, artificial black hole... who knows.

originally posted by: jedi_hamster
perhaps slightly offtopic, but here's an idea.

- build a transmitter based on quantum entanglement (some say it's already been done - astroengineer.wordpress.com...)
- build a probe with such transmitter, able to withstand as much pressure and radiation as possible
- send it to a black hole

the question remains, will quantum entanglement work across event horizon? if so, this could get interesting - not counting the distance to the nearest black hole, but perhaps if the probe would be made with nanotechnology and it would be sent into a small, artificial black hole... who knows.

It would be cool to figure out a way to get more information.. and apparently we have plenty of time to try..

Good idea, nanotechnology would be necessary I would agree... at least we could get a bit closer, or find more information in order to see if we are on the right track..

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: AceWombat04
Is this a new insight into the holographic principle? Because I distinctly remember both he, as well as Sitchin (who I believe was first to challenge Hawking's old thinking on this,) and others talking about this years and years ago. (Read the book "The Black Hole Wars." It's pretty interesting.)

The theory that the resolution to the paradox is that to outside observers the information is "smeared" or "scrambled" at the 2D boundary of the event horizon (and even that this could apply to the entirety of the universe potentially) while to the one in the black hole it is crushed at the singularity, isn't a new one.

So is this a new insight or mathematical proof of the concept, or... ? Just seeking clarification. (As a dumb layperson.)

Peace.

Susskind, not Sitchin.

And the time dilation involved also removes temporal information at the event horizon, the holographic encoding smears multi dimensional information, creating a static image of the that information. Information isn't lost, but it is un-crackably encrypted.

LMAO okay that's hilarious. Apparently Susskind was autocorrected to Sitchin. I guess autocorrect knows I spend some time on ATS eh? (If you know who Sitchin was, that will be hysterical... or disturbing depending upon your views.)

Still my main question though was/is: is this a new insight? Or just a restating of the existing theories we already had about this?

Peace.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

No attempt at humor....got it!

Has anyone else besides Hawkings recognized the Hawkings radiation name for this theory.

a reply to: chr0naut

Thank you. I know Hawking is, I now understand the theory, but am still asking WHO gave the theory its name, was it Hawking himself? Do others call the theory by this name? Is it an "official" name as like The Van Allen Belt?