Penrose mentioned reluctantly in a few interviews that Hawking was essentially “bullied” into concession, largely by Susskind. I wonder how that factor informs this chapter in history. And with that said, does it really matter where scientists land philosophically on this and other topics: more actual evidence as ever is needed.
Haha, I was just about to write exactly that! :) I really believe in Roger's insight that quantum mechanism is not quite right, especially not the Everett interpretation nonsense.
There are no black holes. Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that singularities are not possible, he wrote in 1939 - "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." He was referring to dilation. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's what our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation. Even mass that exists at 75% light speed is partially dilated. It occurs wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers. The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. It's the "missing mass" needed to explain galaxy rotation curves. Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 ultra diffuse galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter, in other words they have normal rotation rates.
@kylelochlann5053 No, it was Schwarzchild. Einstein's reasoning on why singularities do not exist is solid, they definitely don't exist. Einstein's quote explains galaxy rotation curves. There is no singularity/black hole/concentration of mass in our galactic center. That would violate the known laws of physics. Wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum. This means that the mass in our galactic center exists in a "non local" state from the vantage point of an Earthbound observer. It's not just there, it's everywhere. All observed phenomena are perfectly explained by dilation. What we see in modern astronomy has been known since 1925. This is when the existence of galaxies was confirmed. It was clear that there should be an astronomical quantity of light emanating from our own galactic center. Singularities were popularized by television and movies beginning in the 1960's. There can only be clarity in astronomy when the concept is discarded.
@@shawns0762 The first singularity paper was published in 1965, and entitled "Gravitational Collapse and Spacetime Singularities" written by Roger Penrose (for which he won the Noble Prize). Both Einstein and Schwarzschild were dead. Singularities are an essential aspect of relativity and likely necessary in nature to have a stable universe. Our existence is itself dependent on the existence of singularities.
@@kylelochlann5053 It's well known that Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue. Einstein publicly corrected him on multiple occasions. Did you not read Einstein's quote?
@@shawns0762 Einstein was wrong a lot, which would include everything about singularities as nothing was known until after his passing. What then do you think Schwarzschild and Einstein thought a singularity was that they were agreeing or disagreeing about?
I was wondering if perhaps the thermodynamic form of energy might be the more fundamental. It seems that this kind of energy is related to the degree to which a physical system is isolated. What could be more fundamental than isolating a physical system? Isn't it necessary to isolate a physical system so we may recognize it as a physical object to be studied. Maybe the kind of energy unification we need is in using thermodynamic energy as a kind of set theory for physical objects. I believe I saw a lecture relating thermodynamics and quantum measurements, but I can't remember the lecturer... So I'm not sure if it's my idea, or if I'm creatively misremembering a lecture! I'm not so sure information loss is such a problem in physics, as long as there's good ways to quantify it. It seems that science has trended in this direction for a long time. Articulating more constraints to apply accuracy, sacrificing precision. Perfectly precise answers haven't been in the repertoire for a long time.
Information isn't lost. It's built on and added to. Part of that involves popping out of time, which we hold too dearly too, and leads us to the argument in this video.
The existence of black holes is widely accepted in astrophysics, primarily supported by two pillars: the predictions made by general relativity (GR) and observational evidence that aligns with such predictions. However, general relativity is a classical theory, developed before the advent of quantum mechanics, and it is known to break down at singularities, where density and gravitational forces supposedly reach infinite values. Black holes, according to the standard GR framework, are entities defined by such singularities enclosed within an event horizon, which marks the point beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape. However, the assertion that black holes definitively exist based on GR alone is misleading. Black holes are a solution to Einstein’s field equations only under highly idealized conditions. This does not necessarily translate into physical reality, especially when considering that we, as distant observers, will never witness the complete formation of a black hole. Roger Penrose's singularity theorem provides a theoretical basis for the formation of singularities under conditions of gravitational collapse. However, it stops short of asserting that these singularities should lead to observable black holes as understood in common parlance. The theorem indicates that if certain conditions are met, a region where gravity is infinitely strong may form, but it does not guarantee the collapse will produce a black hole in finite time from the perspective of an external observer. When viewed from afar, an object falling towards what we think of as a black hole’s event horizon will appear to slow down asymptotically as it approaches the horizon. In fact, as the object nears the event horizon, time dilation effects become extreme, meaning that from a distant observer’s perspective, it would never actually cross the horizon. This perspective leads to the idea that black holes exist only “asymptotically in the infinite future,” never fully forming in our observable present. If an event horizon does not truly form, this raises questions about the validity of certain phenomena tied to black holes, such as Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation presupposes the existence of an event horizon that allows particle-antiparticle pairs to form near it, with one particle falling into the black hole and the other escaping, thus leading to gradual black hole evaporation. However, if black holes do not form in the present time, the process of Hawking radiation becomes moot-there’s no “surface” for this radiation to occur. Furthermore, the absence of a true event horizon has implications for the information paradox, a longstanding puzzle in theoretical physics. If black holes do not form fully, then the information theoretically lost when matter falls into a black hole might instead remain accessible in some form. This could mean that the so-called information paradox is a non-issue, as information is not irrevocably trapped beyond an event horizon. One of the strongest pieces of evidence cited for black holes is the detection of gravitational waves, which are understood to arise from massive, dense objects merging in distant galaxies. These observations align with predictions of black hole mergers in general relativity, where enormous amounts of energy are released, creating ripples in spacetime. However, attributing these waves to black holes may be premature. If black holes do not fully form, then it’s plausible that gravitational wave signals we attribute to black hole mergers could result from other types of ultracompact, highly dense objects that lack event horizons but still have substantial gravitational effects. These might include: 1. Gravitationally Collapsed Stars: Objects that approach black hole-like densities without forming an event horizon. The merging of such dense stars could produce gravitational waves resembling those of black hole mergers. 2. Gravastars and Other Exotic Matter Configurations: Theoretical models like gravastars (gravitational vacuum stars) could present a similar mass and energy profile to black holes without singularities. They could account for gravitational wave emissions under high-energy conditions without necessitating an actual event horizon. 3. Quantum Gravity Effects: In regimes where general relativity intersects with quantum mechanics, alternative collapse processes may occur, creating structures that mimic black holes but avoid infinite density and event horizons. Quantum gravitational corrections may limit the formation of singularities, leading to dense, compact objects that differ fundamentally from black holes. 4. Dark Matter Interactions: Dark matter and other non-luminous forms of matter could account for similar gravitational effects and might be responsible for certain phenomena we attribute to black holes. If dark matter can form dense clusters, these could create gravitational wave signatures while lacking the defining characteristics of black holes. Black holes persist as a dominant concept partly because they offer a mathematically elegant solution to Einstein’s equations, and observationally, the indirect evidence seems convincing. However, the reliance on a purely GR-based framework without reconciliation with quantum mechanics or observational limitations might be leading us astray. The field equations yield singularities as solutions, but whether these singularities translate to observable, physically real black holes remains a matter of debate. In summary, while general relativity provides a strong theoretical framework for understanding gravity, the assertion that it predicts the physical existence of black holes, fully formed entities with event horizons, may be unfounded. Observations currently attributed to black holes could instead arise from other ultra-dense, compact objects that don’t require event horizons or singularities. Such alternative explanations open the door to reconceptualizing what we observe, interpreting gravitational waves and high-energy cosmic phenomena without assuming the full existence of traditional black holes.
This is awesome. A real question. What if in a parallel universe, a scientist interpreted antimatter as the fading footprint of the matter on space, flowing through time, captured in the onion layers of Their LHC detector so there is no Hawking radiation in that universe. Meaning science has become a box inside a box, inside a box and on and on when all Hawkins wanted to do was to win a bet with Susskind on how blackholes could preserve information, Schrodinger's cat was Schrodinger's joke and Fermi paradox is not at all a paradox!
I really tried to figure out what you wanted to say, with no success. Could you elaborate further on what exactly your point is? (This is a real question and not meant in a cynical way.)
One bad interpretation in a hundred results in ... string theory with theorists who can't conceive a universe without quantum gravity by the analogy of boxing themself in. Antimatter is an interpretation, so Hawking's radiation needing matter antimatter pair, suffers in a different valid probability.
Without a doubt (in my opinion), Professors Unruh and MANY others rightfully believe that Sir Penrose's current mindset (as was Hawking's) is only so-so at best! (In other word's: Loose the singularity dogma, and substitute it with inversion physics as exemplified in Mary Fowler's PREM chart!)...So, when will the King knight Mary Fowler??...That said, Penrose offered specific benchmarks worthy of evaluation - and likely soon to be moved into the 'FLAT EARTH DRAWER!' in a couple of decades.
Depends on what information is defined as. Penrose is stubborn about a few things and yet pushes his Eon. Cherry picking from things like string theory to label a larger grouping with sub groupings. You can argue pair production from a vacuum when you need a energy density regime. Things like that, but do the math for a black hole evaporating and you get the lower bound for white holes. The universe a natural cutoff regime. More so it says the last Planck gets destroyed by light. Censorship layers. People like Penrose didn't calculate out further to things like the last particle decaying and when photons do not even come close to each other. A sudo ground state. It relates to his eon/spinors. 14:13 The original was decay and half life though it has morphed in ways. 20:07 Gravity is the sum of the mass and energy in a given area. A byproduct that is small and gets smoothed for atom or particle sizes. 23:31 The kicker is what you recover is not in the original state. The energy or mass put in comes back out over time. I.E. gets to how information is framed. 26:19 Probability and predictability. Particle production from quantum foam and gravitational waves and energy density regimes.
the information is not necessarily lost in a successor theory, there is no reason it should be, as bill says. but in quantum mechanics and classical general relativity, whatever that means, sure why not.
Presummably, all the information in the universe entered the universe at the past singularity of the universe (BB singularity), so its reasonable that information would exit the universe at a future singularity.
What kind of information is trapped "at the event horizon"? Particles? Furthermore: What happens with this information when the event horizon area shrinks because of hawking radiation?
@@obiwanduglobi6359 Hawking radiation stays at the event horizon because nothing can travel faster than light not even hawking radiation. Hawking radiation can escape black hole's event horizon only when black hole evaporates and the radiation is not trapped anymore by black hole's escape velocity which is the speed of light.
@@classicalmechanic8914 Hawking radiation does not stay at the event horizon. It originates just outside the event horizon, where quantum fluctuations create particle-antiparticle pairs. One of these particles escapes as radiation, while the other falls into the black hole, reducing its mass over time. This process occurs continuously and does not require the black hole to evaporate completely for the radiation to escape. Since Hawking radiation is emitted from outside the event horizon, it is not bound by the black hole's escape velocity, which applies only within the event horizon itself.
@@obiwanduglobi6359 Just outside event horizon still means escape velocity very near the speed of light. Light in such extreme environments would need a lot of time to get out of gravitational well. It might not require the black hole to evaporate completely but radiation would probably gravitationally redshift so much, hawking radiation will be beyond detectability even if it came out.
As I see it, information loss or not depends on a theory of QM that isn't complete, so Hawking isn't sure of what he is claiming, as "T Hooft, Susskind etc were grappling in the dark, all subsequent thinkers only make things worse. I am convinced information/energy cannot be lost.
There is no "singularity" in the center of a black hole! If it was, all inactive black holes would be of the same size! Because there is no "singularity" therefore there is no loss of information!
The black holes are growing whether or not they accrete any matter because they are absorbing spacetime. This is also the cause of the vacuum energy which is the opposite of inflation. So these black holes around the universe are having a tug of war pulling on spacetime. This is the better explanation of what is called dark energy. This means that the universe is not expanding into oblivion for no reason. Dark matter is unnecessary when you consider the changing rates of causation depending on the amount of gravity, depending on the proximity to a supermassive gravitational well.
. With your permission, I am sorry to disagree with you all. IMHO, information is lost in a black hole precisely because it is not lost. Think of a black hole as what it really is: a singularity. It is common sense to understand that into a singularity everything is possible that seems not to be possible outside that context. So, let's think a little more. IMHO, a photon of information that disappears in the context of a black hole can go into one of these 2 states: dark energy or dark matter. And it can only become into one photon again in another singularity, which would not make it dependent on the singularity in which it was transformed or disappeared nor on the other one in which the process was repeated again. IMHO, this is crucial to understand the information theory as the key to unify all theories and reach another state of the art in the computational sciences as in the rest of scientific development as well. Thanks for reading me. .
@alex79suited Allow me to take my hat off to you to show you my most sincere respect. You are a wise man, of shine energy in the profound darkness of our common matter. Peace and Good. 👌🌟🌈🌹
QM classicalized in 2010. Forgotten Physics website uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie, Planck, Bohr etc. So,no. Further: “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well.... everything. Again, no.
Quantum Cyclic Cosmology. A homeostatic universe maintained by the reciprocal processes of electron capture at event horizons and free neutron decay in deep voids. Gravity gathers mass to event horizons. All matter is made neutrons at event horizons because of electron capture. Neutron Infalling at c drops off its kinetic energy as mass for event horizon. The neutron information/identity takes an EinsteinRosen bridge from highest energy pressure conditions, event horizon, to lowest energy density point of space where the quantum basement is lowest and easiest to penetrate, a deep void. A free neutron emerges in deep void and soon decays into amorphous monatomic hydrogen, proton electron soup in a Rydberg state, dark matter. The decay from neutron 0.6fm³ to 1m³ of amorphous hydrogen gas is a volume increase of around 10⁴⁵. Expansion. Dark energy. In time this amorphous hydrogen stabilizes and coalesces and falls towards an event horizon. Loop. A continous physical flow.
The deep problem in Physics is that quantum mechanicists don't accept that their discipline (which is full of inconsistencies and needs clear reworking) is subordinated to General Relativity (i.e. "gravity" or rather space-time as "the field of fields"), which is the only theory so thoroughly proven that counts as "unquestionable fact". Once they gain some humilty we may be able to solve this conundrum and even probably reach Unification. PS: meditate about mass, maybe better as inertial mass than as gravitating mass. Why or how does mass bend space-time? That's what physicists should be working on, really.
@@Mentaculus42 - Quantum fields exist in space-time, the opposite is not true. However quantum-related phenomena (mass specifically and only mass) do affect space-time by bending it. Ironically mass is part of the quantum realm but is not predicted by quantum theories and only inferred from observation. GR is incomplete only in terms of how it couples with QM and mass is at the heart of that completion. Meditate on mass, solve the problem of Unification but do not try to just "quantize gravity": it's a cul-de-sac.
Can a star hide in its own time dilation? Yes. We call them black holes. Time and space. What happens when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object. There is no singularity as time can dilate till infinity and never stop. No information loss, just out of phase. Perhaps big bang didn't have a choice in time, catching up and eating it's way through to make it bang.
That's what Kip Thorne also believes, and he is the foremost authority on GR and Black holes. All information that arrives at the event horizon is transported infinitely far into the future. In toehr words, it forms the basis for the next big bang.
A black hole is a constant in the cosmological term of the hypersphere e^π. Directional vector, scalar product, vector product, zero directional vector and the origin 0. The coordinate axes of the coordinate system are directional vectors. Physical quantities are connected by differentiation. A combination of countless directional vectors creates a new directional vector. Directional vectors can take five states: orthogonal, parallel, non-parallel, intersecting and contracting. The directional vector rotates around the circumference of the hypersphere e^π.
The measurment hypothesis in natural sciences is based on the principle of repeatability. But we all know that we don't repeat the same experiment. We do one on the 22.11.24 and another on the 23.11.24 If we would repeat the same experiment, it would be again the IDENTICAL experiment on the 22.11.24 We really either never do the same experiment twice or our experiment has the quality of being seperable from the rest of the universe without changing its outcome or the probability of the outcome. Not the observer collapses the wavefunction, but the wavefunction is already collapsed, but for every day it collapses as the probability demands.
Why do you think identical conditions are somehow different simply because it's a different moment in time? using your own words of "repeatability", isn't that the very definition of the word? being able to do something and then being able to do it again at another time and get the same result.
Its hard for people to grasp but what information is supposed to be lost exactly? In a galaxy the only information needed is? How to build a galaxy, everything else emerges from the sphere. How do we know this to be true? It's repeated throughout the infinite ♾️ space. We call them galacty. Peace ✌️ 😎.
Well… Who is responsible? I will hold them all accountable rightfully so. Who… is responsible for mathematics and science? Specifically. Not because they are nominated… because they step forward right fucking now!!!
Imagine spending your life arguing about and trying to prove if fairies go to fairy school or not. Arguing about information being lost from black holes is almost, but not quite as useful to the world’s population. Please, please not one more dime from the pockets of truly hard working tax payers for this nonsense, it’s offensive.
@@PhilHalper1 Nope! Special and GR may be the most fundamental truth that physics rightfully embraces today. I make that assertion based on personal insights not yet shared but mathematically and logically are confirmed but far more importantly: common sense confirms this is the case. .
Black-holes are nothing more than a hole in a high-speed electrical field. It is the swirling event-horizon that separates our universe from the static universe in which the galaxy, the black-hole, the stars, the higgs fields are all spawned. It's an electromagnetic universe that follows simple laws of implosion, from all forms of gravity to all forms of living cells..and Biblically, they can all be traced logically.
Well black holes are negative mass anyway, so no paradox to worry about. You can't evaporate away a hole in space. They just had the physics backwards due to the Cavendish Experiment which shows mass moving towards negative mass, not mass moving towards mass.
you dont get to quantize the world into bags of information of different amounts based on volume vs surface. it's theoretical physics nonsense. the "information" of the smallest particle you can muster is infinite, both inside and outside black hole, singularity silliness aside.
Well… Who is responsible? I will hold them all accountable rightfully so. Who… is responsible for mathematics and science? Specifically. Not because they are nominated… because they step forward right fucking now!!!
Awesome as always!
thanks
Thanks Phil! It’s always good to watch people on your own team! It’s not funny to think these greats are mocked fairly openly in many physics circles.
@@tomandersenvideo im not ure bauit mocked, maybe , but ignored more often perhaps?
Penrose mentioned reluctantly in a few interviews that Hawking was essentially “bullied” into concession, largely by Susskind. I wonder how that factor informs this chapter in history. And with that said, does it really matter where scientists land philosophically on this and other topics: more actual evidence as ever is needed.
I vote Penrose 🎉🎉🎉
its a popular vote here
Haha, I was just about to write exactly that! :) I really believe in Roger's insight that quantum mechanism is not quite right, especially not the Everett interpretation nonsense.
Penrose = easily the greatest physicist alive. Thank you Sr Roger for what all you do for human kind.
How do we define Cauchy surfaces for Black Holes?
I really liked this one. Much in the style of your 'Before The Big Bang" series. Speaking of which...is Episode #12 on the Horizon Phil?
not imminently but you knwo about thsi I hope? www.amazon.com/Battle-Big-Bang-Cosmic-Origins-ebook/dp/B0DKBHH3YN
Whatever we find to be the case, I'm sure it'll unlock a whole new realm of the weirdness of reality to further explore.
indeed
Another thought provoking video! Thank you!
you are welcome
There are no black holes. Einstein is known to have repeatedly said that singularities are not possible, he wrote in 1939 -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."
He was referring to dilation. Mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's what our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation. Even mass that exists at 75% light speed is partially dilated.
It occurs wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers.
The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. It's the "missing mass" needed to explain galaxy rotation curves.
Dilation does not occur in galaxies with low mass centers because they do not have enough mass to achieve relativistic velocities. It has been confirmed in 6 ultra diffuse galaxies including NGC 1052-DF2 and DF4 to have no dark matter, in other words they have normal rotation rates.
Einstein didn't know the first thing about singularities. The first singularity theorems weren't written until 10 years after Einstein's passing.
@kylelochlann5053 No, it was Schwarzchild. Einstein's reasoning on why singularities do not exist is solid, they definitely don't exist. Einstein's quote explains galaxy rotation curves. There is no singularity/black hole/concentration of mass in our galactic center. That would violate the known laws of physics.
Wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass, dilation will occur because high mass means high momentum.
This means that the mass in our galactic center exists in a "non local" state from the vantage point of an Earthbound observer. It's not just there, it's everywhere.
All observed phenomena are perfectly explained by dilation. What we see in modern astronomy has been known since 1925. This is when the existence of galaxies was confirmed. It was clear that there should be an astronomical quantity of light emanating from our own galactic center.
Singularities were popularized by television and movies beginning in the 1960's. There can only be clarity in astronomy when the concept is discarded.
@@shawns0762 The first singularity paper was published in 1965, and entitled "Gravitational Collapse and Spacetime Singularities" written by Roger Penrose (for which he won the Noble Prize). Both Einstein and Schwarzschild were dead.
Singularities are an essential aspect of relativity and likely necessary in nature to have a stable universe. Our existence is itself dependent on the existence of singularities.
@@kylelochlann5053 It's well known that Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue. Einstein publicly corrected him on multiple occasions. Did you not read Einstein's quote?
@@shawns0762 Einstein was wrong a lot, which would include everything about singularities as nothing was known until after his passing.
What then do you think Schwarzschild and Einstein thought a singularity was that they were agreeing or disagreeing about?
It is my anecdotal experience that particle and string theorists side with unitarity and gravitational physicists who argue that information is lost.
yeah thats roughly right i think
😡😤😡TH-cam has disabled subtitles!!! Even though the "subtitles" icon is on, there are no subtitles, and that's in all videos!!!!
I dont get this, when i setich the subtitles on i see them, they are there.
They work fine on my end of the YT universe.
I was wondering if perhaps the thermodynamic form of energy might be the more fundamental.
It seems that this kind of energy is related to the degree to which a physical system is isolated.
What could be more fundamental than isolating a physical system? Isn't it necessary to isolate a physical system so we may recognize it as a physical object to be studied.
Maybe the kind of energy unification we need is in using thermodynamic energy as a kind of set theory for physical objects.
I believe I saw a lecture relating thermodynamics and quantum measurements, but I can't remember the lecturer... So I'm not sure if it's my idea, or if I'm creatively misremembering a lecture!
I'm not so sure information loss is such a problem in physics, as long as there's good ways to quantify it.
It seems that science has trended in this direction for a long time. Articulating more constraints to apply accuracy, sacrificing precision. Perfectly precise answers haven't been in the repertoire for a long time.
Information isn't lost. It's built on and added to. Part of that involves popping out of time, which we hold too dearly too, and leads us to the argument in this video.
I thought Hawking gave up too easily.
Which concept of what information is cause thinking and mind isn't physically the same as information in material
The existence of black holes is widely accepted in astrophysics, primarily supported by two pillars: the predictions made by general relativity (GR) and observational evidence that aligns with such predictions. However, general relativity is a classical theory, developed before the advent of quantum mechanics, and it is known to break down at singularities, where density and gravitational forces supposedly reach infinite values. Black holes, according to the standard GR framework, are entities defined by such singularities enclosed within an event horizon, which marks the point beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape.
However, the assertion that black holes definitively exist based on GR alone is misleading. Black holes are a solution to Einstein’s field equations only under highly idealized conditions. This does not necessarily translate into physical reality, especially when considering that we, as distant observers, will never witness the complete formation of a black hole.
Roger Penrose's singularity theorem provides a theoretical basis for the formation of singularities under conditions of gravitational collapse. However, it stops short of asserting that these singularities should lead to observable black holes as understood in common parlance. The theorem indicates that if certain conditions are met, a region where gravity is infinitely strong may form, but it does not guarantee the collapse will produce a black hole in finite time from the perspective of an external observer.
When viewed from afar, an object falling towards what we think of as a black hole’s event horizon will appear to slow down asymptotically as it approaches the horizon. In fact, as the object nears the event horizon, time dilation effects become extreme, meaning that from a distant observer’s perspective, it would never actually cross the horizon. This perspective leads to the idea that black holes exist only “asymptotically in the infinite future,” never fully forming in our observable present.
If an event horizon does not truly form, this raises questions about the validity of certain phenomena tied to black holes, such as Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation presupposes the existence of an event horizon that allows particle-antiparticle pairs to form near it, with one particle falling into the black hole and the other escaping, thus leading to gradual black hole evaporation. However, if black holes do not form in the present time, the process of Hawking radiation becomes moot-there’s no “surface” for this radiation to occur.
Furthermore, the absence of a true event horizon has implications for the information paradox, a longstanding puzzle in theoretical physics. If black holes do not form fully, then the information theoretically lost when matter falls into a black hole might instead remain accessible in some form. This could mean that the so-called information paradox is a non-issue, as information is not irrevocably trapped beyond an event horizon.
One of the strongest pieces of evidence cited for black holes is the detection of gravitational waves, which are understood to arise from massive, dense objects merging in distant galaxies. These observations align with predictions of black hole mergers in general relativity, where enormous amounts of energy are released, creating ripples in spacetime. However, attributing these waves to black holes may be premature.
If black holes do not fully form, then it’s plausible that gravitational wave signals we attribute to black hole mergers could result from other types of ultracompact, highly dense objects that lack event horizons but still have substantial gravitational effects. These might include:
1. Gravitationally Collapsed Stars: Objects that approach black hole-like densities without forming an event horizon. The merging of such dense stars could produce gravitational waves resembling those of black hole mergers.
2. Gravastars and Other Exotic Matter Configurations: Theoretical models like gravastars (gravitational vacuum stars) could present a similar mass and energy profile to black holes without singularities. They could account for gravitational wave emissions under high-energy conditions without necessitating an actual event horizon.
3. Quantum Gravity Effects: In regimes where general relativity intersects with quantum mechanics, alternative collapse processes may occur, creating structures that mimic black holes but avoid infinite density and event horizons. Quantum gravitational corrections may limit the formation of singularities, leading to dense, compact objects that differ fundamentally from black holes.
4. Dark Matter Interactions: Dark matter and other non-luminous forms of matter could account for similar gravitational effects and might be responsible for certain phenomena we attribute to black holes. If dark matter can form dense clusters, these could create gravitational wave signatures while lacking the defining characteristics of black holes.
Black holes persist as a dominant concept partly because they offer a mathematically elegant solution to Einstein’s equations, and observationally, the indirect evidence seems convincing. However, the reliance on a purely GR-based framework without reconciliation with quantum mechanics or observational limitations might be leading us astray. The field equations yield singularities as solutions, but whether these singularities translate to observable, physically real black holes remains a matter of debate.
In summary, while general relativity provides a strong theoretical framework for understanding gravity, the assertion that it predicts the physical existence of black holes, fully formed entities with event horizons, may be unfounded. Observations currently attributed to black holes could instead arise from other ultra-dense, compact objects that don’t require event horizons or singularities. Such alternative explanations open the door to reconceptualizing what we observe, interpreting gravitational waves and high-energy cosmic phenomena without assuming the full existence of traditional black holes.
This is awesome. A real question. What if in a parallel universe, a scientist interpreted antimatter as the fading footprint of the matter on space, flowing through time, captured in the onion layers of Their LHC detector so there is no Hawking radiation in that universe. Meaning science has become a box inside a box, inside a box and on and on when all Hawkins wanted to do was to win a bet with Susskind on how blackholes could preserve information, Schrodinger's cat was Schrodinger's joke and Fermi paradox is not at all a paradox!
I really tried to figure out what you wanted to say, with no success. Could you elaborate further on what exactly your point is? (This is a real question and not meant in a cynical way.)
One bad interpretation in a hundred results in ... string theory with theorists who can't conceive a universe without quantum gravity by the analogy of boxing themself in. Antimatter is an interpretation, so Hawking's radiation needing matter antimatter pair, suffers in a different valid probability.
Im sorry i dont understand this , maybe you could clarify?
Thank you both for making my point
Without a doubt (in my opinion), Professors Unruh and MANY others rightfully believe that Sir Penrose's current mindset (as was Hawking's) is only so-so at best! (In other word's: Loose the singularity dogma, and substitute it with inversion physics as exemplified in Mary Fowler's PREM chart!)...So, when will the King knight Mary Fowler??...That said, Penrose offered specific benchmarks worthy of evaluation - and likely soon to be moved into the 'FLAT EARTH DRAWER!' in a couple of decades.
Depends on what information is defined as. Penrose is stubborn about a few things and yet pushes his Eon. Cherry picking from things like string theory to label a larger grouping with sub groupings.
You can argue pair production from a vacuum when you need a energy density regime. Things like that, but do the math for a black hole evaporating and you get the lower bound for white holes. The universe a natural cutoff regime. More so it says the last Planck gets destroyed by light. Censorship layers. People like Penrose didn't calculate out further to things like the last particle decaying and when photons do not even come close to each other. A sudo ground state. It relates to his eon/spinors. 14:13 The original was decay and half life though it has morphed in ways. 20:07 Gravity is the sum of the mass and energy in a given area. A byproduct that is small and gets smoothed for atom or particle sizes. 23:31 The kicker is what you recover is not in the original state. The energy or mass put in comes back out over time. I.E. gets to how information is framed. 26:19 Probability and predictability. Particle production from quantum foam and gravitational waves and energy density regimes.
Can we loose unitarity and preserve Q numders?
the information is not necessarily lost in a successor theory, there is no reason it should be, as bill says. but in quantum mechanics and classical general relativity, whatever that means, sure why not.
We have to quit taking one small step for man and take one giant leap for mankind
Thank you!❤
you are welcome
Our human form has to understand that mind and consciousness doesn't understand death its meaningless to both
Presummably, all the information in the universe entered the universe at the past singularity of the universe (BB singularity), so its reasonable that information would exit the universe at a future singularity.
maybe
AdS quanta are larger than CFT quanta. This proves that unitarity does not apply across the symmetry breaking point.
Black hole research is a pretty apt name.
Information is not lost. It is just trapped on the event horizon of the black hole until black hole evaporates.
What kind of information is trapped "at the event horizon"? Particles? Furthermore: What happens with this information when the event horizon area shrinks because of hawking radiation?
@@obiwanduglobi6359 Hawking radiation stays at the event horizon because nothing can travel faster than light not even hawking radiation. Hawking radiation can escape black hole's event horizon only when black hole evaporates and the radiation is not trapped anymore by black hole's escape velocity which is the speed of light.
@@classicalmechanic8914 Hawking radiation does not stay at the event horizon. It originates just outside the event horizon, where quantum fluctuations create particle-antiparticle pairs. One of these particles escapes as radiation, while the other falls into the black hole, reducing its mass over time. This process occurs continuously and does not require the black hole to evaporate completely for the radiation to escape. Since Hawking radiation is emitted from outside the event horizon, it is not bound by the black hole's escape velocity, which applies only within the event horizon itself.
@@obiwanduglobi6359 Just outside event horizon still means escape velocity very near the speed of light. Light in such extreme environments would need a lot of time to get out of gravitational well. It might not require the black hole to evaporate completely but radiation would probably gravitationally redshift so much, hawking radiation will be beyond detectability even if it came out.
As I see it, information loss or not depends on a theory of QM that isn't complete, so Hawking isn't sure of what he is claiming, as "T Hooft, Susskind etc were grappling in the dark, all subsequent thinkers only make things worse. I am convinced information/energy cannot be lost.
Geoff Penington isn't here. He must an unavoidable for information paradox.
Excellent as usual!
thanks
There is no "singularity" in the center of a black hole! If it was, all inactive black holes would be of the same size! Because there is no "singularity" therefore there is no loss of information!
I guess the amount of proof for your assertion is the same as the amount of proof of those who support singularities?
The black holes are growing whether or not they accrete any matter because they are absorbing spacetime. This is also the cause of the vacuum energy which is the opposite of inflation.
So these black holes around the universe are having a tug of war pulling on spacetime. This is the better explanation of what is called dark energy. This means that the universe is not expanding into oblivion for no reason.
Dark matter is unnecessary when you consider the changing rates of causation depending on the amount of gravity, depending on the proximity to a supermassive gravitational well.
Thank you and thanyou
you are welcome
It means so much to some of us and so appreciated
.
With your permission, I am sorry to disagree with you all.
IMHO, information is lost in a black hole precisely because it is not lost.
Think of a black hole as what it really is:
a singularity.
It is common sense to understand that into a singularity everything is possible that seems not to be possible outside that context.
So, let's think a little more.
IMHO, a photon of information that disappears in the context of a black hole can go into one of these 2 states: dark energy or dark matter.
And it can only become into one photon again in another singularity, which would not make it dependent on the singularity in which it was transformed or disappeared nor on the other one in which the process was repeated again.
IMHO, this is crucial to understand the information theory as the key to unify all theories and reach another state of the art in the computational sciences as in the rest of scientific development as well.
Thanks for reading me.
.
IMHO, you don’t need to write “IMHO”, because it’s implied.
@Paine137 YOU are so kind. Thank YOU.
@@fgjruk
YOU’RE WELCOME. ALSO, ALL CAPS AREN’T NECESSARY EITHER.
@alex79suited Allow me to take my hat off to you to show you my most sincere respect. You are a wise man, of shine energy in the profound darkness of our common matter. Peace and Good. 👌🌟🌈🌹
@Paine137 🫡🙏
QM classicalized in 2010. Forgotten Physics website uncovers the hidden variables and constants and the bad math of Wien, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Debroglie, Planck, Bohr etc. So,no. Further: “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics including the CAUSE of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light and well.... everything. Again, no.
Quantum Cyclic Cosmology.
A homeostatic universe maintained by the reciprocal processes of electron capture at event horizons and free neutron decay in deep voids.
Gravity gathers mass to event horizons.
All matter is made neutrons at event horizons because of electron capture.
Neutron Infalling at c drops off its kinetic energy as mass for event horizon.
The neutron information/identity takes an EinsteinRosen bridge from highest energy pressure conditions, event horizon, to lowest energy density point of space where the quantum basement is lowest and easiest to penetrate, a deep void.
A free neutron emerges in deep void and soon decays into amorphous monatomic hydrogen, proton electron soup in a Rydberg state, dark matter.
The decay from neutron 0.6fm³ to 1m³ of amorphous hydrogen gas is a volume increase of around 10⁴⁵.
Expansion. Dark energy.
In time this amorphous hydrogen stabilizes and coalesces and falls towards an event horizon.
Loop.
A continous physical flow.
The deep problem in Physics is that quantum mechanicists don't accept that their discipline (which is full of inconsistencies and needs clear reworking) is subordinated to General Relativity (i.e. "gravity" or rather space-time as "the field of fields"), which is the only theory so thoroughly proven that counts as "unquestionable fact". Once they gain some humilty we may be able to solve this conundrum and even probably reach Unification.
PS: meditate about mass, maybe better as inertial mass than as gravitating mass. Why or how does mass bend space-time? That's what physicists should be working on, really.
Hmm 🤔 ❓QM is subordinate to GR❓Both are incomplete, maybe the unifying solution has to fix BOTH AREAS OF INCOMPLETENESS. If only …
Theories are not facts.
Facts: Electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena.
Frameworks: General relativity.
@@pierfrancescopeperoni - Gravitational phenomena like things usually falling down and planets dancing in sky for no reason?
@@Mentaculus42 - Quantum fields exist in space-time, the opposite is not true. However quantum-related phenomena (mass specifically and only mass) do affect space-time by bending it.
Ironically mass is part of the quantum realm but is not predicted by quantum theories and only inferred from observation.
GR is incomplete only in terms of how it couples with QM and mass is at the heart of that completion.
Meditate on mass, solve the problem of Unification but do not try to just "quantize gravity": it's a cul-de-sac.
@@LuisAldamiz
So u r saying that GR is COMPLETE?
Can a star hide in its own time dilation? Yes. We call them black holes. Time and space. What happens when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object. There is no singularity as time can dilate till infinity and never stop. No information loss, just out of phase. Perhaps big bang didn't have a choice in time, catching up and eating it's way through to make it bang.
That's what Kip Thorne also believes, and he is the foremost authority on GR and Black holes. All information that arrives at the event horizon is transported infinitely far into the future. In toehr words, it forms the basis for the next big bang.
A black hole is a constant in the cosmological term of the hypersphere e^π.
Directional vector,
scalar product,
vector product,
zero directional vector
and
the origin 0.
The coordinate axes of the coordinate system are directional vectors.
Physical quantities are connected by differentiation.
A combination of countless directional vectors creates a new directional vector. Directional vectors can take five states: orthogonal, parallel, non-parallel,
intersecting and contracting.
The directional vector rotates around the circumference of the hypersphere e^π.
The measurment hypothesis in natural sciences is based on the principle of repeatability. But we all know that we don't repeat the same experiment. We do one on the 22.11.24 and another on the 23.11.24 If we would repeat the same experiment, it would be again the IDENTICAL experiment on the 22.11.24 We really either never do the same experiment twice or our experiment has the quality of being seperable from the rest of the universe without changing its outcome or the probability of the outcome. Not the observer collapses the wavefunction, but the wavefunction is already collapsed, but for every day it collapses as the probability demands.
Why do you think identical conditions are somehow different simply because it's a different moment in time? using your own words of "repeatability", isn't that the very definition of the word? being able to do something and then being able to do it again at another time and get the same result.
Its hard for people to grasp but what information is supposed to be lost exactly? In a galaxy the only information needed is? How to build a galaxy, everything else emerges from the sphere. How do we know this to be true? It's repeated throughout the infinite ♾️ space. We call them galacty. Peace ✌️ 😎.
Well…
Who is responsible?
I will hold them all accountable rightfully so.
Who… is responsible for mathematics and science?
Specifically.
Not because they are nominated… because they step forward right fucking now!!!
Imagine spending your life arguing about and trying to prove if fairies go to fairy school or not.
Arguing about information being lost from black holes is almost, but not quite as useful to the world’s population.
Please, please not one more dime from the pockets of truly hard working tax payers for this nonsense, it’s offensive.
would you have said the same for general relativity? if not , why not?
@@PhilHalper1 Nope!
Special and GR may be the most fundamental truth that physics rightfully embraces today.
I make that assertion based on personal insights not yet shared but mathematically and logically are confirmed but far more importantly: common sense confirms this is the case. .
Black-holes are nothing more than a hole in a high-speed electrical field. It is the swirling event-horizon that separates our universe from the static universe in which the galaxy, the black-hole, the stars, the higgs fields are all spawned. It's an electromagnetic universe that follows simple laws of implosion, from all forms of gravity to all forms of living cells..and Biblically, they can all be traced logically.
Yikes.
Well black holes are negative mass anyway, so no paradox to worry about. You can't evaporate away a hole in space. They just had the physics backwards due to the Cavendish Experiment which shows mass moving towards negative mass, not mass moving towards mass.
Horking rong
Inestine rong
Dorkins rong
New town rong
Coppernikers rong
Seems all scienceman fisiks rong
The lady doth protest too much.
most of what we know from these figures is right, that why when they might have said something wrong it makes headlines.
you dont get to quantize the world into bags of information of different amounts based on volume vs surface. it's theoretical physics nonsense.
the "information" of the smallest particle you can muster is infinite, both inside and outside black hole, singularity silliness aside.
Our human form has to understand that mind and consciousness doesn't understand death its meaningless to both
Well…
Who is responsible?
I will hold them all accountable rightfully so.
Who… is responsible for mathematics and science?
Specifically.
Not because they are nominated… because they step forward right fucking now!!!