Hawking did not claim that black holes do not exist, but that black holes do not have an event horizon

54 תגובות

1. Just for the sake of good order:

   My argument is that there is an immediate transfer of information between entangled particles - the information about the state of the electron's spin or the polarization of the photon - but this transfer of information does not contradict or "challenge" relativity.

   The only thing that entanglement challenges is Einstein's so-called claim that non-locality in quantum entanglement contradicts relativity, as it requires information to be transmitted faster than light. Non-locality exists, information travels faster than light, but this does not contradict relativity, as Bohr explained later in the article from which Shmulik quoted.

   And the puzzlement is: why did Einstein claim that a paradox exists - the EPR paradox - if this paradox does not exist? Do we need Bohr to explain this trivial point to him?

   Or maybe the maestro saw something we are missing?

2. I'll start with an apology - I don't spend most of my days dealing with topics related to quantum, so my knowledge on the subject is limited to the knowledge of a bachelor's degree student + a little more.

   On the merits,
   I tend to accept Israel's position. The Copenhagen interpretation, i.e. the interpretation according to which particles that are in superposition and then at one moment collapse simultaneously and yet no information passes because basically nothing was known, feels to me like an evasion that with great difficulty comes out justified due to the doubt in the court of relativity. Worse than that, for this lame theory they give up the determinism that in a science like physics this seems absurd to me and it does create countless logical paradoxes that ultimately stem from the fact that measurement takes on a sacred role and no one knows how it enters the equation. In my opinion, such a paradoxical interpretation should only be accepted when there really is no choice, and unfortunately I have the impression (and this is a description I heard from someone, and unfortunately I don't remember from whom) that a significant number of physicists working in the field have fallen in love with the absurdity of quantum theory and they preserve it with religious zeal (most physicists, by the way, simply ignore the problem and solve things As they know without bothering themselves with what exactly that means).

   The question is of course whether there is another option and the answer is probably yes. There are several other formalisms which give the same experimental results but they disagree with the Copenhagen interpretation. The best known of them is the Bohemian mechanics developed by the physicist David Bohm (he of Aaronov Bohm). According to this theory, the full results of classical and quantum physics can be explained by assuming the existence of the "quantum potential". Mathematically, this potential can be obtained in a quite natural way by placing {Re^{iS/hbar) in the Schrödinger equation where S is the classical action and R is the quantum potential. In this way we naturally get the Hamilton-Jacobi equation that describes the classical behavior of a particle which includes an additional component related to the quantum potential and tends to 0 in the classical limit. According to the supporters of the theory, it fully explains the quantum results and is completely deterministic - there are no half-alive and half-dead cats and measurements that are not clear from them.

   So why doesn't everyone believe it?
   The supporters of the idea have many non-physical reasons - Boehm was a communist in the 50s, and Bohr a dictator, etc. There may be something to it, but I still think there are two main reasons: physical and methodological.
   - The physical reason is that the quantum potential does not obey the special theory of relativity - that is, it spreads at an infinite speed... This is of course very dirty and very problematic. On the other hand, as I mentioned, I don't really think that the Copenhagen interpretation really presents a local solution - its apparent locality is also based on a lie and hocus pocus. So if locality is given up in the quantum limit anyway, I at least prefer the Torah to continue to be deterministic.
   - The methodological reason is that this Torah did not present any new result, it was only proved to be equivalent to the Copenhagen interpretation. In this respect, there is a historical advantage to the old interpretation, simply because it is the one that has already been accepted and the new one has the burden of proof.

   So who is right?
   We will wait and see. My hope is that a new bell will be restored that will succeed in finding a "bell inequality" that will make it possible to differentiate between the Copenhagen interpretation, the Bohemian interpretation and other interpretations.

3. deer,
   I have a question about the interweaving, from a debate in another thread: https://www.hayadan.org.il/what-asimov-planed-for-the-negev-in-2014-2712137/comment-page-15/#comment-473251
   Israel Shapira challenges the theory of relativity with the paradox he presents there and, among other things, he debated with me about the issue of interweaving. His argument is simple: he claims that the interweaving takes place at zero time, otherwise he asks, what else could it be. I responded that a solution to the interweaving could be according to Niels Bohr's approach (I quoted from an article published in "Haaretz" by Professor Ben Israel): http://www.haaretz.co.il/odyssey/1.2226918. Here is the quote:
   "Bohr's reply to the argument of Einstein Podolsky and Rosen was published in the next issue (No. 48) of the newspaper in which the original article was published (Physical Review). Bohr's answer is long and detailed and contains two parts. One part deals with the "translation" of Einstein's argument into the language of physicists by means of a practical experimental setup in which measurements of the type described in EPR can be made. Bohr analyzes the EPR claims using this experimental set-up and shows why the assertions of quantum theory agree with common sense (the physicist) and are not "puzzling". He also explains why there is no need to break the principle of relativity and why there is no contradiction to the theory of relativity. This part is relatively easy to understand and has been accepted by the world's physicist community as a good answer to the EPR argument. The second part is "philosophical" in nature and in it Bohr repeats his principle of complementarity and the idea of ​​the relativity of physical quantities to the experimental setup. According to him, a complete description of reality should be given by a complementary series of magnitudes which never exist together. This part is difficult to understand, and in fact it can be stated that for many years it remained closed and incomprehensible to many physicists. Even Einstein himself, in a response letter he wrote to Schrödinger, admits that he does not understand the idea of ​​complementarity.

   According to Bohr's analysis, we are not concerned with a "mysterious" transfer of information from one particle to another. What determines, then, that in one experimental set-up we can talk about the location of the second particle, while in another experimental set-up it is about its speed, is nothing but the way in which we constructed the experiment."

   I also wrote that an exotic solution (taken from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%27s_delayed_choice_experiment) The problem of the two slits could mean that the photon can see ahead into the future or change the past (perhaps based on the work of Yakir Aharonov) and if this is the solution, why not in entanglement.
   How about this?

4. Point, of course you could be right and no one knows what is happening beyond the event horizon. But physics is constantly based on the extrapolation of what we do see into the realm where we don't. General relativity has been tested many times and meanwhile there is not a single experiment that disagrees with it.
   As for the environment of the horizon of a black hole, it is indeed impossible for the time being (and probably for the rest of our lives) to conduct experiments that correctly simulate what happens on the edge of a black hole, but there is observational evidence that supports the predictions as to what happens in orders of magnitude less than one Schwarzschild radius from the horizon (the emission spectrum of discs Absorption into a black hole agrees wonderfully with the theory of relativity).
   Therefore, until there is a good reason to assume that the theory of relativity is wrong and incorrectly describes a black hole (a body that itself gave birth long before it was found to exist) there is no reason to do so - at the center of the black hole it has been known for years that the physics of the theory of relativity is incorrect and everyone recognizes it. Now the question is whether the whole "firewall" story means that we don't understand correctly what is happening on the horizon of a black hole. In this context, it is important to emphasize that even the most extreme proponents of the idea do not claim that this interferes in any way with the horizon of a realistic black hole of the types we are familiar with, such a black hole will have a completely normal, non-singular horizon, just as the theory of relativity expects. Only black guys who are much older than billions billions of times the age of the universe will start having these horizon problems.

   And as for an electrically charged black hole, what's wrong with that? This is the result of the "no hair theorem" and it seems very reasonable to me:
   It is likely that charges that have a long-term effect will survive a fall into a black hole and thus the forces acting on a distant charged particle will not change in the instant that another particle that it has never met and that is not related to it has fallen into a black hole. In any case, if this bothers you, remember that black holes having a TPS has much weirder results and these have many observational supports.

5. Miracles,

   I have no argument, you made a statement about a very basic physical law "retention of information" and I would like to
   Explain this claim. Is the law so basic that it only applies to holes
   blacks? Is it only valid for quantum systems? If the law is so basic we would expect
   To see it taking place in classical systems and in them on a daily basis, isn't it?
   Plus when you say something worth standing behind, it's the scientific approach, the approach
   The religious relies on the words of rabbis as evidence of the correctness of things.

6. The saying that the electric charge is also conserved in a black hole is well known.
   But now suddenly it sounds strange to me. Does this mean a black black with a non-zero charge induces an electric field around it?

   Zvi, the analyzes of what happens beyond the event horizon are not based on any experiment. There is nothing that proves that the theory of relativity is at all correct for extreme situations on the event horizon and there is certainly nothing to talk about what lies beyond it.

   It also seems that relativity can't be right there because it's based on pure equivalence assumptions (which turn out to be true in the macro of the universe), while the physics of the universe is much more nebulous than that.

7. sympathetic
   Read:
   Greg Yeager's Entanglement, Information, and the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

   Information conservation is fundamental: recovering the lost information in Hawking radiation

   Baocheng Zhang, Qing-yu Cai, Ming-sheng Zhan, and Li You,

   The information interpretation of quantum mechanics by Karl Svozil

   The Black Hole War by Leonard Susskind.

   Your argument is with them, not with me.

8. sympathetic,

   Regarding changing the number of particles, I don't think it should be a concern since in many high energy processes the number of particles changes. Anyway, I see what you're saying, I've long wondered why the electric charge is conserved but other charges (let's say the baryon or leptonic number) are not - I think the argument is that they are short-lived so we wouldn't know about it from the outside, but I feel that the answer is no I understand completely.

9. deer

   Many thanks for the detailed answer. I still have to think about her
   It is not clear to me what the situation is where the particles have no existence and they behave
   as one particle. Is it a fermionic or bosonic state? are kept
   The quantum numbers that described matter before it collapsed?

10. Miracles

    You stated something that you claim is a fundamental law of nature. Stand behind what you say.
    The idea is not yours but if you present it you will at least know how to base your opinion. to
    Present something and then say well it must be true something else said. Anyway
    I would say that it is more likely that it is your lack of understanding of what was said than
    An assertion of something about a fundamental law of nature.
    Back to my questions, what is the basis for this law? Who discovered him? What basic symmetry becomes
    Same as a fundamental law?
    Second, determinism is not the same as information. For example, I put the keys of
    The car on the table, they will still be there even if I forget where I put them, the information
    was lost and determinism was not affected. What's more, since quantum theory we know that
    The world is not deterministic. Regarding information in a single moment in the examples I gave you I had knowledge
    My share of the world. Except in the models my knowledge of the state of things in the world is always
    Partial (experimental results reported with errors). Even partial information can be lost, but
    Not according to your claim of preserving the information. I had partial information about the position of the gas molecules
    In a certain area in the space of the room (inside the box) and I lost some of this information, now I am
    I know that the gas is in the whole room, that is, in a larger area, the legal information I have is smaller
    now Is the law you quoted only valid for information that is not lost? Maybe
    Does the law only apply to black holes?

11. point,

    Strings are not a phase of matter, according to string theory all the particles we know are
    consist of extensions of strings and therefore the claim that the matter in a black hole is complex
    Strings are meaningless. What they tried to do with partial success was to try
    Estimate the number of internal states of a black hole using string theory
    And by doing so get Bekenstein's formula that the entropy of Black's law is proportional
    to the event horizon (with a quarter factor if I'm not mistaken).
    The basic laws of physics are not always observed but those that are are based on assumptions
    Our very basic about nature. Invariance to moves entails the law of conservation of momentum, invariance
    For moving in time the law of conservation of energy and on the other hand the symmetry between right and left was broken and thus
    What was considered a law of nature until then is no longer so.

12. sympathetic,

    According to classical general relativity, the black hole has no internal structure. Everything inside the horizon is empty, until you get to the middle and there is a singular point (or rather a ring, if we consider a rotating black hole), which has an infinite density and where all the mass and all the angular momentum of the black hole is. This result is called "The Singularity Theorem" and is one of the two most famous results of our acquaintance Hawking (in addition to the radiation named after him).
    Of course, this result does not include reference to quantum effects and I think that until they started talking about firewalls, most physicists would have said that all of this is true up to the Planck scale around the singularity (and hence the need for a quantum gravity theory).

    On one leg (and not that I know much more than that), the origin of this singularity claim is that on the horizon of the black hole the coordinates change roles. In everyday reality, the geometric distances appear in metric with a + sign (Pythagoras), while time appears with a - sign (this is what creates all the familiar effects of special relativity). When you approach a large mass, the coordinates change their relative size and on the horizon they change roles - from now on the time coordinate becomes a + sign, while the radial coordinate becomes a - sign, as a result, just as in everyday reality we must move forward in time, so inside a black hole we must move towards the center. More than that, no matter what force you put in, all it can do is speed up the collapse and in a finite time any matter that enters the black hole will reach the singularity (where the relevant time scale is the time it takes for light to cross a distance equal to the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole, i.e. it is about a day at most, to the most massive black holes in the universe).

    As for what happens to the particles themselves, they no longer exist as independent particles but as one giant particle, that's why black holes are such simple bodies and hence the saying that all the information about what was before is lost, the black hole is one particle that contains "information" only about the charged mass and the XNUMX (therefore there is also nothing to talk about an equation of state there).
    By the way, I think this is one of the least problematic points since apparently if black holes were not known, they would have had to be invented to overcome the problem because bodies based on degeneracy pressure are limited to a maximum of 2-3 solar masses (the maximum mass for neutron stars - for masses The larger the particles in the object become relativistic and it becomes unstable).
    Therefore, as soon as you know that neutron stars exist, and you know that they may absorb mass, you also understand that a problem arises and that something dramatic must happen to them as soon as they cross a certain finite limit (the uncertainty comes from the fact that the equation of state of matter at nuclear density is unknown and good enough). Quark stars will not solve the problem, they are just an exception on the way to it - something like instead of having neutron stars up to 2.5 solar masses, everything above 1.9 is already a quark star and at 2.6 becomes a black hole (don't get me wrong with the numbers).

13. sympathetic
    I'm not trying to establish a new law. I mentioned something that I learned is extremely basic, both in Newtonian physics and in quantum theory.
    I explained to you, regarding the gas in the tank, that if you had full knowledge at a certain moment, then you have full knowledge of every moment. This concept has existed for exactly 200 years. You may be familiar with the term "determinism"... which is the same thing.

    The whole "war" on the information loss paradox in black guys is based on the idea of ​​information loss.

    The examples you gave are wrong, because you didn't have all the knowledge to begin with. You had only probabilistic knowledge. I don't understand why you argue with me at all - the whole idea is not mine...

14. sympathetic,
    If I remember correctly they try to describe a black hole as consisting of strings.

    And regarding conservation laws, have you ever thought about the symmetry that is attached to the conservation law of the laws of physics? Why are the laws kept? It is true that law is not a measurable quantitative quantity but acts like an operator. But it still seems to me that the question is still true.

15. deer
    I would like to ask you a silly question that came to my mind about black holes,
    We know that electron degeneracy prevents the collapse of white dwarfs and neutron degeneracy
    Prevents neutron stars from collapsing, but the material in a black hole should be denser.

    What then is the equation of state of the matter inside the black hole? On the one hand according to
    The sentence "the hairlessness of a black hole" we have no way of knowing what is going on inside it,
    On the other hand, we don't have the ability to reach high densities like a black guy in a lab, (maybe
    In a solar accelerator?) But on the other hand, before the collapse, the material consisted of nuclei now
    He creates a plasma of quaracs and gluons? If the matter inside the black hole is complex
    From any particles it must have excited states. And the follow-up question is there a correlation
    Between the matter falling into the black hole and its excited states and Hawking radiation?

16. Miracles

    Certainly everyone has the right to think as they wish, but that is not the point here. You invent a law of nature
    New and expect me to believe you. In science it is customary to base things on arguments and not on faith.
    First let's leave the lack of scientific foundation of the law you invented and talk about its attacks
    in the scientific literature.
    If there is indeed an information retention law and as you claim "Information retention is a basic law like retention
    energy and matter.” What is the evidence for this law? You found one person who wrote about it, if it were a law
    Basic you would find a little more sources, I guess. In addition to this if it is a basic law in science who
    discovered him? In what year? Has it been tested in the laboratory or is its foundation theoretical?
    only?
    Now for a little more scientific questions. Everyday experiences teach us that information is not saved, I gave you
    Just a few examples and I can provide dozens more, if it's a basic law you might find it useful
    Explain to me why it does not exist on a daily basis. You write, you gave me a simple explanation, but to my liking
    You didn't explain anything. What happens to the information about the sugar that dissolves in the boiling water? What's going on
    To the memory of the location of the car keys? What happens to the milk in the coffee or the information about the gas that escaped from the window?
    In addition to all this, you avoid referring to things about symmetry. According to the law of conservation laws
    Related to a basic symmetry in nature What symmetry is your and Susskind's new law based on?
    So miracles claims need to be substantiated and not just flourish in space.

17. On top of the phenomenon you mentioned:

    Nothing comes out of most black holes in the centers of galaxies and they are ordinary black holes for all intents and purposes.
    A small part of the black holes in the centers of galaxies, especially in distant and ancient regions of the universe, are still absorbing material, these regions are called AGN - active galactic nuclei. The adsorption causes in a small number of cases the formation of a jet (jet in Hebrew) whose composition is not clear (it is rather a jet of mass).

    In this context it is important to understand that the jet is not created because of the black hole but because of the interaction of the matter falling into it with it. In the absence of material adsorption there is no jet and the black hole becomes a quiet and normal black hole as known in most of the contemporary universe. Since this phenomenon is not related to the black hole being massive or not, a similar jet is created in other places in the universe where matter is attached to massive bodies (not even necessarily to black holes) - usually given a high angular momentum.

    in microwaves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_binary#Microquasar) the material accreted to a stellar black hole creates an absorption disk and a relativistic jet with the same structure as that of an AGN (AGN are often called quasars, so even the name indicates the similarity between the phenomena).
    Also in long gamma ray bursts (long GRBs), a black hole is formed in the center of a star and causes the emission of a highly energetic relativistic jet for a short time (the absorption lasts a short time and therefore also the jet).
    Since what is important is the absorption, the jet does not require black holes. Jets may also be formed in the case of absorption into neutron stars or white dwarfs. Moreover, even during the formation phase of normal stars (T-Tauri type) a jet is sometimes formed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_Tauri_wind
    In these cases the jet is usually much less energetic, simply because while matter falling into a black hole is accelerated to speeds close to the speed of light (and therefore the collisions with it are very energetic), matter falling into a star is much slower and still, because the matter is attached to a rotating object such a jet is formed.

18. sympathetic
    I gave you an explanation, simple, I gave you an example and I gave you a source. You have the right to think differently.
    If it interests you - start reading a map:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

19. deer
    It is strange that you state with certainty that the black holes in the centers of galaxies are "normal" and nothing comes out of them.

    Observations in space prove that, from both poles, two mass tubes come out of them at enormous speed.

20. Hezi,

    Black holes are very simple bodies,
    Unlike a stone, which has color, size, shape, luster, mass, etc. properties that make the description of the stone a complicated matter that requires a lot of data, black holes require only three parameters and these completely define them: the mass, the angular momentum and the electric charge. The statement that these are the only three properties of black holes is called the "no hair theorem" and originates from the picturesque saying that "a black hole has no hair", meaning that nothing comes out of it, and there is nothing to talk about its properties (except for these three).
    Because of this simplicity and lack of complex structure, these massive black holes do not behave differently from stellar black holes. Their internal structure is very similar, the characteristics that describe them are the same and so are the effects they impose on their environment - therefore it is very reasonable to treat them as the same object, even more than it makes sense to treat the sun and a star of 150 solar masses as two "stars" (since stars have many Qualitatively different properties since they are much more complex bodies).

    What is true is that the origin of stellar black holes and supermassive black holes is probably historically (in the cosmic and not human sense) different. While the origin of the stellar black holes is very clear, in fact not much is known about the origin of the super massive black holes and it is only known that they are very ancient.

21. Miracles

    So what someone wrote an article, does that make what they said true? If it is such a law
    Basic Give me information about him from another source. How is this law drafted and what is it based on?
    Other physics conservation laws come from symmetries, what is the symmetry underlying your law
    And Susskind's?

    Where is the information conservation in the world? I used to know how to block the volume of the gas particles into a box
    I knew the limited area where they are, now I open the particle box
    scattered in the space of the room and now I know much less about them, haven't I lost information?
    You know what, now I also open the window, a simple operation. If I knew anything about gas
    Even the momentum and the exact position of the gas particles this information will be lost when the gas
    (let's say argon) will come in contact with the air particles.
    What about the coffee sample? Almost every phenomenon we observe is related to information loss.
    When we melt ice, when we pour sugar into hot water and dissolve it, when
    We forget where we put the car keys. All these phenomena are information loss,
    So where is the basic law you are talking about?

22. sympathetic
    If you had exact information about the position and momentum of every molecule, both in the box and in the room, then at any given moment you would still know that information. No information will be added to you and you will not lose any information.
    Laplace already knew that.

    I directed you to the article, did you read it? Here we go again http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/2013/Zhang_Cai_Zhan_You_2013.pdf

    The title of the article:
    Information conservation is fundamental: recovering the lost
    information in Hawking radiation

23. Miracles

    Your claim that "saving information is a basic law like saving energy and matter" is very interesting.
    And you are based on Prof. Leonard Susskind. If there is an information retention law, it might be useful to explain to me what is happening
    When two put a box with gas in the corner of the room and open the box. Before I opened the box
    I had accurate information about where the gas particles were, where did the information go? I might even use an example
    Yours I have a cup of coffee with milk and coffee and I mix them where did the information about the location of the milk go?
    If there is an obvious physical law from looking at the world, it is that information is not preserved....

24. deer

    Do you think a supermassive black hole at the center of galaxies
    It has the properties of an ordinary black hole,
    Or is it something completely different, and only the name is misleading?

25. And if not - is it small and black? …. And surely a woman too...

26. and white (-:

27. I stated "not relevant to astrophysical reality as it is understood today" - if there are small black holes, God is great...

28. deer
    You say the topic has no relevance because of the age of the universe. I understand that you are referring to large black holes, but can't there be small holes where it would have meaning? Let's say - from a collision of very energetic bodies?

29. point,

    You are getting into semantics here - a black hole, as defined from the beginning and as it derives from the theory of general relativity, is exactly what you call an "irrelevant black hole", i.e. it is a body that whoever falls into it will reach the horizon and then to the singularity in a finite time, and on the other hand whoever looks at it from the outside will never see the falling material cross the horizon. The body you call an "actual black hole", which you can look at things falling into and suddenly then crossing the horizon, does not exist and no one ever claims that it exists.
    Therefore, you can say that the "irrelevant black hole" is not a black hole, and this means that for you there are no black holes, but it means that you have invented an alternative definition of a black hole to the one that everyone uses, and with it you prove that black holes do not exist (proof that cats do not exist: I define a cat as a creature 150 meters tall, with leaf hooves, feathers and a glowing blue horn in the center of its head and as far as I know there is no evidence of cats).
    Since the invention of the theory of relativity, it is clear to everyone what the properties of a black hole are, it is clear that what you are talking about is an "irrelevant black hole" and the question of whether this object exists or not. There is no debate about the actual black hole - it does not exist!

    Regarding black holes and their existence:
    Black holes are a prediction of general relativity. This Torah is a classical Torah, which assumes a "smooth" reality and ignores quantum effects. A direct result of this theory is that a sufficiently concentrated mass will create a black hole, in which the time coordinate is replaced by the space coordinate, meaning that just as in reality outside the black hole an object must move forward in time, so beyond the horizon of a black hole an object must move towards the center.
    Later, it became clear (somewhere in the 60s) that this prediction is not just a theoretical result that is not reflected in reality, and that physical objects may really reach such states and as of today, the convention is that astrophysical objects can reach this state and indeed do in terms of all measurable parameters.

    And here we come to the problem.
    The physicists of the 19th century thought their mechanical theories were correct and did not think it necessary to introduce quantum corrections. The reason is that the measurements were not thin enough to indicate anomalies. The general theory of relativity is the equivalent of Newton's theory of old - it is a classical theory, it does not include the quantum theory and since it is clear that the quantum theory is correct at a certain level, it is clear that corrections must be made. The point is that the measurements that are made are very rough and therefore cannot indicate the nature of the required corrections and these could possibly be significant (according to some theorists), and unfortunately in the absence of an experiment one must be content with theory.

    As of today, the only theory that puts quantum theory into a relativistic framework is Beckenstein Hawking radiation. In fact, this is an (probably successful) attempt to treat quantum field theory in the curved space of the near horizon of a black hole. The problem is that never in the foreseeable future is it expected to have any kind of experimental confirmation and criticism from this direction is unfair - it is clear that there will be no confirmation and on the other hand it is clear to everyone that something must be very rotten for this treatment by Bekenstein and Hawking to be wrong. I think it would be fair to say that as of today there is a fairly broad consensus that Beckenstein-Hawking radiation exists.

    And then we come to the issue that Hawking addressed.
    In quantum theory there is a very delicate thing called entanglement. The idea that you take a pair of particles in a certain defined quantum state and separate them from each other, in this state the particles are each in an undefined quantum state, on the other hand when we measure the state of one, the state of the other will be determined immediately and it doesn't matter how far away it is. The mechanism in which this effect works is unclear (because the whole measurement thing is unclear), what is clear is that the effect is true.
    Now when you include this effect on Hawking radiation for an old black hole (a black hole is old when it has lost a significant order of magnitude of its mass through Hawking radiation and this means many, many, many times the age of the universe - something completely unrealistic) some argue based on the scale theory, which is created Discontinuity on the horizon in contradiction to the theory of relativity. Discontinuity is called a "firewall".

    In this context it is important to emphasize:
    A. This topic has no relevance to the young and familiar black holes in the contemporary universe.
    B. The relevance of the question of the existence of the "firewall" is that it teaches about the way in which relativity connects with quantum theory. So that although it is not relevant to astrophysical reality as it is understood today, it is definitely an important question concerning the foundations of physics.
    third. Some argue that B is also the problem of the "firewall" idea, because in fact in the absence of a good theory of quantum gravity, this story is a bit of a game of "I guess", because who guarantees that the second law of thermodynamics and the known information theory will survive an event like Formation and evaporation of a black hole?

30. Without understanding a word of what people said here, a pleasure.

31. GUY You are asking a philosophical question. Apparently it was accurate to say what Hawking intended to say and what the computer eventually said. But between us, what is the difference between a speaker and vocal cords? And if there really is no difference, then no one ever said anything.

32. Ehud, note that I also said that a black hole is always in the state of formation, so in this state of formation there is something that is an event horizon (which is always larger by an epsilon than the real event horizon that would have been an actual black hole).

33. Tell me, isn't the Hawking effect a Beckenstein Hawking effect? (it's ours, applause, etc.),
    And as for Hawking himself and what he said or was supposed to say - he says everything through such a megaphone, (and then it sounds like such a slur) so what he says is also not exactly him. Ask the nurse. Not his sister, but his sister, the one who married him. Not his sister.

34. sympathetic
    Read here: http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/2013/Zhang_Cai_Zhan_You_2013.pdf

35. sympathetic
    Professor Leonard Susskind, thinks otherwise….

36. For you to say what you said, someone should have said that nothing was said

37. point

    It seems that even logically there is no basis for your claim. You say near the event horizons of time
    Little to infinity and therefore there is no black hole, but if there is no black hole there is also no event horizon
    From the beginning, your argument is logically flawed.

38. He did not say that there are no black holes, nor did he say that there is no event horizon. He didn't say he didn't say anything either
    He actually said nothing
    It has been a long time since he has been unable to say anything due to his difficult condition

39. My point is about how things look from the outside. From the outside it looks like a black hole would take an infinite amount of time to form because time slows down to infinity in the event horizon. And so there is no such thing as a black hole. All there is is a black hole in the making.

    And whoever falls into the black hole, for whom the rate of time outside of him will increase and increase to infinity in the event horizon. And he will get to see the rate of formation of the black hole grow and grow. Then it will turn out that even before he reached the event horizon one of two things will happen, either the world outside of him will come to an end with a big crash, or.... Because it is not possible for an infinite amount of time to pass outside of it and still have the black hole exist. So somehow the black hole will disappear before it reaches the event horizon.
    In short, there is no such thing as an actual black hole.

40. Miracles

    Why do you see the need to invent new laws of science "Conservation of information is a basic law like conservation of energy and matter.".
    There is no law of conservation of information, but the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy is closed in a system
    always goes up.

41. It's a bit strange to me that there is no mention of Leonard Susskind - who fought Hawking a lot on this very issue.

42. He did not say that there are no black holes, nor did he say that there is no event horizon. Overall hypothesized how to resolve the entropy paradox by redefining the nature of the event horizon. Even if the hypothesis is correct, there are black holes and there is also an event horizon, only its nature is a little different.

43. In my opinion,
    A historic mistake was made.
    When they called what is in the center of galaxies
    "Supermassive black hole".

    It turns out that its properties are fundamentally different from a "normal" black hole.

44. Amit
    Think of a salt crystal. On the one hand, the disorder is very low, as you said. On the other hand, it is very simple to describe the system because of the order: you don't need to describe the position of each molecule, it is enough to know the size of the crystal and the position of several molecules in one corner (to define angles and spaces).
    Or - think of milk and coffee before and after mixing. When entropy is low there is order, and very little data is needed to know where the milk molecules are and where the coffee molecules are.

45. An interesting approach to entropy increase: "at the level of information required to describe a system".
    I am used to the definition of "increase in the level of system disorder". I'm interested in why these approaches are necessarily equal...
    I will rejoice in repentance

46. Anonymous (unidentified) user
    Black holes do not grow. Only their mass can increase.
    It's not a vanishing information paradox, but it contradicts everything we know. Conservation of information is a fundamental law like conservation of energy and matter.

47. Black holes grow by absorbing matter and apparently also dark matter and thus reach the weight of millions of suns
    And it's not a paradox if information disappears you just have to expand the laws that humans invented

48. As far as I know there is no experimental or observational proof of Hawking's theories, including Hawking radiation,
    There is a video here about Hawking's theories and his importance to science, but surprisingly somewhere at the end of the video
    The issue is mentioned that there is actually no scientific proof for the Hawking radiation theory,
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZiWKmhuaZE
    Correct me if I'm wrong,

49. Deer and dot
    Well, you're right....time slows down for an observer and of course not for the one in the gravitational field.
    So what the dot says (says?) is not that black holes don't exist, but that they can't be observed from afar. This is of course true in general relativity, simply from the fact that no light comes out (which is equivalent to what the point said).
    But, quantum theory says otherwise, in my understanding.

50. Point and miracles:

    A correct point precisely from the point of view of an observer of infinity.
    An observer falling into the black hole will reach the horizon and then the singularity in the center in a finite time (all this, of course, in classical general relativity). Rather an observer who is far from a black hole will see the material falling into the black hole redshifted and redder and redder and never falling directly into the black hole.
    Instead, it is important to qualify the statement according to which matter never falls into the black hole - the redshift becomes exponential near the black hole with a characteristic time that is approximately the time it takes for light to cross the black hole (for a black hole of the solar mass about 5-10 of a second) i.e. Very quickly there really is no evidence left of the existence of the object outside the black hole. Of course, from a gravitational point of view, matter that is a millimeter outside the horizon is part of the black hole for all intents and purposes for those who are far from the horizon.

51. point
    Time slows down only for those who are near the hole - according to general relativity, time slows down in a gravitational field. But, that says nothing about a remote viewer.

52. In my opinion I have found no reason to think that blacks exist in the present. The explanation is simple, time near a black hole slows down to a rate of 0 at the event horizon. This process of slowing down time also occurs during the formation of the black hole. And then actually to an outside observer it would appear that the black hole takes an infinite amount of time to form. And by the time an infinite amount of time has passed, it will have evaporated due to Hawking radiation.
    That is, the black hole does not even exist in the future and does not exist at all. Then there is no paradox.

53. The article where I sent only gives abstract/. There is no body of the article and no theory. In my opinion, but this is what is in the article. At his extreme age, he has clarity that allows him to run theories in his head, but perhaps not develop mathematics for them. And maybe he just didn't publish the whole article.

54. the article http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.5761v1.pdf

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.