JMJones0424 Posted July 19, 2012 Report Share Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) Came across this in youtube, two papers and a youtube video giving a layman's explanation. The view that there's nothing particularly special about the event horizon, from the perspective of infalling matter, is being questioned. Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?AbstractWe argue that the following three statements cannot all be true: (i) Hawking radiation is in a pure state, (ii) the information carried by the radiation is emitted from the region near the horizon, with low energy eective eld theory valid beyond some microscopic distance from the horizon, and (iii) the infalling observer encounters nothing unusual at the horizon. Perhaps the most conservative resolution is that the infalling observer burns up at the horizon. Alternatives would seem to require novel dynamics that nevertheless cause notable violations of semiclassical physics at macroscopic distances from the horizon. Complementarity And FirewallsAbstractAlmheiri, Marolf, Polchinski, and Sully, recently reported a remarkable and very surprising phenomenon involving old black holes. The authors argue that after a black hole has radiated more than half its initial entropy, the horizon is replaced by a \rewall" at which infalling observers burn up, in apparent violation of one of the postulates of black hole complementarity. In this note I will give a different interpretation of the rewall phenomenon in which the properties of the horizon are conventional, but the dynamics of the singularity are strongly modied. In this formulation the postulates of complementarity are left intact. But the reader is nevertheless warned: black holes could be more dangerous than you thought. Edited July 19, 2012 by JMJones0424 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ti@NiS Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 If at the beginning of the universe no quarks had formed, how there is something inside of a black hole, if the conditions are similar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 If at the beginning of the universe no quarks had formed, how there is something inside of a black hole, if the conditions are similar? Can you show some evidence that the conditions inside a black hole are similar to conditions at the beginning of the universe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ti@NiS Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 All data provided by modern science awarded the conditions are the same, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 All data provided by modern science awarded the conditions are the same, no? No... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole Again if you want to discuss the properties of a black hole please start your own thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ti@NiS Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 This topic is available to discuss black holes, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 (edited) This topic is available to discuss black holes, no? I'm not sure what JMJones has in mind for this thread, best to start your own thread. Starting a thread is easy to do. Edited August 21, 2012 by Moontanman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ti@NiS Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 More people interested in the topic here. Promotes an interesting discussion in which all share as a family, yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 More people interested in the topic here. Promotes an interesting discussion in which all share as a family, yes? No it is against the rule to hijack another thread with your own questions. If you make a thread others will join in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ti@NiS Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 The original author is silent to the issue. Better wait for the judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 The original author is silent to the issue. Better wait for the judge. The judge will be a moderator and I have been around long enough to know the rules. the OP may not be online but that doesn't mean we can hijack his thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted August 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 I'm not sure what JMJones has in mind for this thread... I guess I meant this thread to be a discussion of Susskind's complemetarity solution to Hawking's information paradox. I'm not going to pretend to comprehend the subject enough to comment, but I thought that some of those here that do might like to discuss this alternative, as it contradicts the notion that infalling matter experiences nothing particularly significant about the event horizon. The short video in the opening post contains a layman friendly explanation of what is being disputed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 I'm having trouble watching videos tonight for some reason, I'll try to catch it later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ti@NiS Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 If the video is interesting. simplicity of the matter is that the information is on the surface, but not inside the sphere is assumed perfectly round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted September 16, 2012 Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 (edited) Since this thread has already been expertly derailed, I don't see any harm in voicing this opinion. The original post (both links and the video) submitted for discussion here unquestionably had to do with the (theoretical) properties of black holes, but when Ti@NiS asks a question.... "If at the beginning of the universe no quarks had formed, how there is something inside of a black hole, if the conditions are similar?" ....instead of simply explaining why the question lacks validity by showing how it has no relevance to the topic (in accordance with the rules), you respond by irrationally demanding evidence supporting the asking of the question.... Moontanman "Can you show some evidence that the conditions inside a black hole are similar to conditions at the beginning of the universe?" ....a very curious debating technique! Next, Ti@NiS asks.... Ti@NiS "All data provided by modern science awarded (shows) the conditions are the same, no?" ....to which you authoritatively respond.... Moontanman "No... http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Black_hole Again if you want to discuss the properties of a black hole please start your own thread." ....essentially telling Ti@NiS that, again (actually for the first time), rather than ask questions about the properties of a black hole in this thread about black holes another thread should be started about black holes, instead of simply explaining why you think the question lacks validity by showing how it has no relevance to the topic (in accordance with the rules). Then, when Ti@NiS seeks clarification by asking.... Ti@NiS "This topic is available to discuss black holes, no?" ....astonishingly, you respond by saying.... Moontanman "I'm not sure what JMJones has in mind for this thread, best to start your own thread. Starting a thread is easy to do." ....What? You continue to suggest starting another thread when you don't even know yet what the original poster has in mind for this one? Dude! Talk about drinking your own Kool-Aid! Ti@NiS then politely persists.... Ti@NiS "More people interested in the topic here. Promotes an interesting discussion in which all share as a family, yes?" ....your response, even though as you yourself say you aren't even sure what the original poster has in mind for the thread, amounts to yet another obviously irrational remark, now even accusing Ti@NiS of trying to hijack the thread by asking questions about the topic.... Moontanman "No it is against the rule to hijack another thread with your own questions. If you make a thread others will join in." ....but if you don't even know what the original poster has in mind for the thread, how could you possibly know if it's being hijacked? How is asking questions about some aspect of black holes in a thread about black holes hijacking? Finally, Ti@NiS very reasonably proposes a solution.... Ti@NiS "The original author is silent to the issue. Better wait for the judge." ....whereupon you tersely inform Ti@NiS that there's no need to wait because you've already decided for everyone what the thread is about, with more talk of hijacking.... Moontanman "The judge will be a moderator and I have been around long enough to know the rules. the OP may not be online but that doesn't mean we can hijack his thread." Who put you in charge? Other than hammering away at Ti@NiS with your interpretation of the rules (which you're not even following yourself), the only comment you've actually made throughout all of this that even remotely had anything to do with the topic was that you couldn't get the video to play! I would submit that, whether the questions posed by Ti@NiS make any sense to you or not they were at least on topic and that it's actually you that hijacked this thread (which it appears came to a screeching halt as a result) by playing moderator and taking it upon yourself to decide for everyone else what the thread was about right from the start. As if that wasn't enough, this is all followed by your starting a new thread "What Is Inside A Black Hole", ostensibly for the purpose of providing a place to ask questions about black holes, where you then proceed to go about making unfounded assertions that must later be withdrawn (but only after you're called on it twice). Frankly, I'm surprised a real moderator didn't slap you around a little on this one Moontanman! Edited September 16, 2012 by Aemilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blamski Posted September 16, 2012 Report Share Posted September 16, 2012 the topic starter wanted to discuss a specific characteristic of black holes, Ti@NiS wanted to discuss the similarities between the origin of the universe and the inside of black holes. reasonable enough to suggest discussing it in a different topic so that the OP can be focussed on without too much distraction. the fact that no discussion of said topic evolved is irrelevant, in my opinion. what you have here is an issue with moontanman which is probably best pursued in private. JMJones0424 and Moontanman 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted September 28, 2012 Report Share Posted September 28, 2012 (edited) Blamski "what you have here is an issue with moontanman which is probably best pursued in private." No, what you have here is an issue with the posts, not the poster. Perhaps a bit much though.... point taken. Edited September 28, 2012 by Aemilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.