Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Researchers may have solved information loss paradox to find black holes do not form
PhysOrg ^ | 6/20/07

Posted on 06/20/2007 4:12:14 PM PDT by LibWhacker

"Nothing there," is what Case Western Reserve University physicists concluded about black holes after spending a year working on complex formulas to calculate the formation of new black holes. In nearly 13 printed pages with a host of calculations, the research may solve the information loss paradox that has perplexed physicists for the past 40 years.

Case physicists Tanmay Vachaspati, Dejan Stojkovic and Lawrence M. Krauss report in the article, "Observation of Incipient Black Holes and the Information Loss Problem,” that has been accepted for publication by Physical Review D.

"It's complicated and very complex," noted the researchers, regarding both the general problem and their particular approach to try to solve it.

The question that the physicists set out to solve is: what happens once something collapses into a black hole" If all information about the collapsing matter is lost, it defies the laws of quantum physics. Yet, in current thinking, once the matter goes over the event horizon and forms a black hole, all information about it is lost.

"If you define the black hole as some place where you can lose objects, then there is no such thing because the black hole evaporates before anything is seen to fall in," said Vachaspati.

The masses on the edge of the incipient black hole continue to appear into infinity that they are collapsing but never fall over inside what is known as the event horizon, the region from which there is no return, according to the researchers.

By starting out with something that was nonsingular and then collapsing that matter, they were determined to see if an event horizon formed, signaling the creation of a black hole.

The mass shrinks in size, but it never gets to collapse inside an event horizon due to evidence of pre-Hawking radiation, a non-thermal radiation that allows information of the nature of what is collapsing to be recovered far from the collapsing mass.

"Non-thermal radiation can carry information in it unlike thermal radiation. This means that an outside observer watching some object collapse receives non-thermal radiation back and may be able to reconstruct all the information in the initial object and so the information never gets lost," they said.

According to the researchers, if black holes exist, information formed in the initial state would disappear in the black hole through a burst of thermal radiation that carries no information about the initial state.

Using the functional Schrodinger formalism, the researchers suggest that information about the energy from radiation is long evaporated before an event horizon forms.

"An outside observer will never lose an object down a black hole," said Stojkovic. "If you are sitting outside and throwing something into the black hole, it will never pass over but will stay outside the event horizon even if one considers the effects of quantum mechanics. In fact, since in quantum mechanics the observer plays an important role in measurement, the question of formation of an event horizon is much more subtle to consider."

The physicists are quick to assure astronomers and astrophysicists that what is observed in gravity pulling masses together still holds true, but what is controversial about the new finding is that "from an external viewer's point it takes an infinite amount of time to form an event horizon and that the clock for the objects falling into the black hole appears to slow down to zero," said Krauss, director of Case's Center for Education and Research in Cosmology.

He continued "this is one of the factors that led us to rethink this problem, and we hope our proposal at the very least will stimulate a broader reconsideration of these issues."

If black holes exist in the universe, the astrophysicists speculate they were formed only at the beginning of time.

Source: Case Western Reserve University


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: blackholes; information; loss; paradox; physics; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last
To: miliantnutcase

No links, sorry.

Just alot of casual reading. There are quite a few books written for lay people.


41 posted on 06/20/2007 8:12:47 PM PDT by dangerdoc (dangerdoc (not actually dangerous any more))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

One has to wonder what the perception of a person who is falling into a black hole would be...is the warp in space/time so severe that the person falling in would perceive an ever increasing acceleration and compression until unity with the core mass is achieved...but that it appears to take “forever” to an outside observer?


It would suck. It would really, really suck.


42 posted on 06/20/2007 8:23:50 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kcar
Was there a beginning in time? What happened in the eons upon eons before then?

Think of time in the purely scientific form. You can determine the time between two events if you know their coordinates and the velocity of propagation. This statement has no meaning if you take away the coordinate system. You can't measure the time before events before the universe was created unless you strictly assume that space existed before the Big Bang into which our universe expanded. Saying 'before' attributes more characteristics to time than have been defined by science.

43 posted on 06/20/2007 8:24:58 PM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: READINABLUESTATE; miliantnutcase

All you need to know is it’s turtles all the way down.


44 posted on 06/20/2007 8:29:51 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: burzum

To hell you say?!


45 posted on 06/20/2007 8:29:52 PM PDT by kcar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: irv

I agree on the tidal forces and the big stretch...I was speaking hypothetically.


46 posted on 06/20/2007 8:47:35 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gcruse

If you knew your Quantum Mechanics, ala Professor Feynman, you’d learn a whole new chapter in physics, IF you knew your QM...


47 posted on 06/20/2007 11:47:43 PM PDT by timer (n/0=n=nx0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: timer

Compared to the average person, I’m a professor of not only QM but quantum chromodynamics. Compared to someone who understands QM, if there is such person, I am clueless.


48 posted on 06/21/2007 7:01:37 AM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-48 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson