Is information ever actually lost in a black hole?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by RJBeery, Jan 20, 2016.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Irrepressible maybe, but at least honest.
    Sure......
    and then comes the squirming and whimpering in raising other trolls that have been less than honest.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Wow, you are too good, what a definition you have given of half hearted apology ? I am siting at 45 points, otherwise I would have used around 20-30 points to tell you what ...............you are.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Oopsy daisy! wrong thread!
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2016
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,728
    Speaking as a non-physicist, let me see if I have this correct.

    Black Holes have only 3 known properties - mass, charge and angular momentum. Is this correct?

    There appears to be a theory of J.A. Wheeler that states whatever additional properties may be possessed by an object outside a Black Hole, once it is absorbed (by "falling in"), all properties other than mass, charge and angular momentum are lost (since it is now part of the Black Hole).
    -
    I believe this is called the "no hair" theorem.

    Now, if one defines a "property" by a yes-no answer to some specific request for information about an object outside a Black Hole, then the no hair theorem says that yes, information is lost.

    Note this has nothing to do with the ability to transmit information across the so-called event horizon - it is simply an argument of principle.

    Is this gibberish?
     
  8. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,652
    To reiterate what pryk posted
    . . . which would violate unitarity.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
     
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    No it's not gibberish based on the domain of the theoretical model being used for the analysis. That's the classical analysis of GR. Stuff falls into the whole but the hole remains with the information inside? GR doesn't predict the whole will eventually evaporate and radiate everything that fell in away in a thermal black body spectrum. Hawkings prediction of Hawking radiation is the avenue for information loss. It's thermal radiation and it can no longer describe what it was when it fell into the hole. That's why there is an information paradox and why we have some interesting proposals to explain why the information isn't actually lost. The latest one by Hawking uses the holographic principal in a different way than t'Hooft. I think I linked both papers earlier in the thread. This is about quantum gravity a domain GR doesn't address.
     

Share This Page