MigL

Conservation of information is a Quantum Mechanical concept. Black holes are a General Relativistic phenomena. Hawking radiation is a crude marriage of the two and may not account for all possible effects A quantum Gravity theory is needed. A black hole still has mass-energy which it can use to repay the 'loan', along with charge and angular momentum. And of course for Hawking Radiation to be possible, it also has to have temperature and entropy.

I recognise the two astronaut example from Kip Thorne's book, But it is uniform, non-accelerated motion which is indistinguishable. Acceleration, as you describe, is always distinguishable. Otherwise, good example.

You misunderstood the analogy. If the black hole eats one of the particles it still owes the energy of both particles back to the universe, in effect the black hole has to use its own mass-energy to make up the difference. And the universe is not regulated like banks, it will lend to anybody, but HUP constrains the length of the mortgage. If I remember correctly AJB, Hawking's original argument involved black hole entropy, which then implies a temperature and susequent black body radiation, or am I mistaken ?

Noether's theorem implies that any boundary ( ie. an asymmetry ) in time, linear translation and angular translation, means that conservation laws of mass-energy, linear momentum and angular momentum respectively, are violated at those boundaries.

Introductory classical Mechanics says there is no such thing as centrifugal force. The force is actually in the other direction and is called centripetal.

Because you don't seem to understand that the relativistic train and its occupants are in a different inertial frame than the rest of the earth and its inhabitants. And while the rest of the earth sees the train and its occupants almost frozen in time, the train's occupants would not notice any such effect, everything would happen as normal to them. From their frame it is the rest of the earth and its inhabitants that are virtually frozen in time

Again ( more head banging ), your time at sea level is slowed compared to a person at higher elevation. So. are you, at sea level, in slow motion RIGHT NOW ????

If you borrow $20 from the bank and then eat $10 of it, you still have the other $10, but you owe $20 to the bank so you have to use $10 of your own money to make up the difference. Banks and the universe are very strict about repayment of loans.

I must have missed something. Where is the solid evidence that spiral galaxies should create new matter at the centre of the galaxy ????? You had better notify NASA, CERN and all scientific journals that the law of conservation of mass-energy has been falsified. This is a paradigm shift in the way we understand and do physics !!! The above is obviously sarcasm, the following is not. ACG52 was right, you need to get a clue and stop spouting nonsense.

You make me want to bang my head against the wall !!! Time is not universal, it 'flows/passes/moves' at different rates depending on the situation. At near light speed your subjective time is unchanged, if you time your heartbeat with the clock on the wall of your spaceship it will be your normal heartrate. YOU ARE NOT IN SUSPENDED ANIMATION OR SLOW MOTION ! An observer on the earth looking at you with a telescope would see you and the clock on the wall move at a much slower rate. This does not mean that he is at rest, for all you know the earth could be moving past the spaceship at near light speed, since there is no universal frame of reference. As a matter of fact if you have a telescope in your spaceship and you look back at the observer, you will see his motions and his wall clock run much slower. To recap, there is no universal time and there is no universal space ( frame of reference ). We can speak of time and space at low speeds because of years of 'intuition' or 'common sense' ( ie the error is negligible ), but at relativistic speeds we can only speak of space-time because we have no 'intuition'or 'common sense' experience ( and the error is extremely large ) at those speeds. Incidentally time dilation occurrs in gravitational potential wells also. Time goes by slower for you at sea level on the earth than it would for someone who has scaled the peak of Mt. Everest, because you are deeper in the potential well ( very slight but measurable ). Does that mean you are in slow motion ???

Consider an equation say y=x . we say the equation is invariant if it does not change with a Lorentz transform, which is a change in frame of reference ( I hope I' getting the terminology right, its been a while ). An example of invariance in relativity is speed of light=c, which holds true with no changes for all frames. We say the equation is covariant if both sides of the equal sign change, but X and Y are modified so that the equation still holds true. Covariance in relativity means that as we transform the frame to relativistic speed, distances are modified by time and time is modified by distance ( special relativity was reformulated by Minkowsky and Einstein to reflect this and we normally speak of space-time, not space or time ), but the equation still holds true. So to recap, in relativistic situations, some laws of physycs are invariant and don't change at all,, while some are covariant such that the terms of the equation change, but the equation still holds true.

Sorry, my bad, on re-reading my post noticed a huge mistake. The axiom particles I mentioned are not the ones I meant (way too many particles to keep track of ). In the 90s, when I was very interested in this stuff, there was mention in literature ( internet was just taking off ) of an X particle. A massive particle og 10^15 GeV, predicted by GUTs as a mediator between quarks in the decay of a proton or neutron ( or their antiparticles ) into a lepton and a meson, to account for proton decay. These X particles are unlikely to ever be found, even with our largest collider, but in the early universe at a time of 10^-30 sec, the average temp of the universe was 10^28 deg,and sufficient energy was available for their creation. The peculiar trait that they had was that decay for particles and antiparticles was not necessarily symmetric and so may account for the matter dominated present universe and lack of much antimatter. This was speculative and may be totally discredited now, but I mentioned it because it illustrates how particles are created when a threshold energy is available, which is available at or above a certain temp, and that temp is only present for a period of tjme after t=0 as the universe expands and cools. In effect it wad a gradual creation, everything did not come into being at the same time. Lthough from our point of view, it happenes in a miniscule fraction of a second so it may as well have been a Bang.

We may as well make it up, but since it can never affect us what difference would it make ?? A lot of theories are based on one or another fundamental assumption. GR is no different, but it has proved extremely accurate when applied correctly ( it is not valid in certain situations ).

"Where is the black hole in the above image" ??????????? I don't think you have any ide what a black hole is if you expect to see it.

EMfield, the number of quasars, or active galaxies, is much higher at distances of 10 Gly ( 10 billion yrs ago ). There is probably very few if any within a couple of hundred million light years, and if there are they are probably due to galactic collisions or other abnormalities which awaken the dormant central black hole. Maybe you should do a search for quasars and active galaxies on Wiki rather than looking up pretty pictures.

Outside the observable universe spaces between galaxies/clusters is expanding faster than light can cross it. In effect it is expanding faster than c. This is not a technological limitation but a physical limitation. The observable universe is also the limit of causality since any signal that tranmits information ( all forces and effects ) is limited to c.

There is no actual 'bang'. It was a term coined by Hoyle, a detractor of the theory. The modern inflationary big bang theory has certain energy thresholds where particles are created according to their masses. Some aspects are unproven. An example being the use of GUT and axiom particles ( both un-proven ) to account for proton decay and the matter/ anti-matter asymmetry of the universe. But it is the best we have at the moment. Incidentally, didn't you ever see the movie ALIEN ? "In space, no-one can hear you scream". They can't hear a 'bang' either. Sound waves are just compression/rarefaction of the medium that carries them. I don't really know what that medium ( depending on the temperature ) would do to your eardrums.

The growing sphere you are seeing is the universe. How did you get to be outside the universe ?? Are you God ( sorry don't mean to offend religious people ) ??

Really ? Far away 'young' galaxies are the same as nearby "older' galaxies ??? So show me a nearby quasar, just one, that's all. Or were younger galaxies more active than they are today ?? By the way I didn't want to read your first link and the second concerned the distribution of red giants in our galaxy, no comparison was made to other galaxies.

If you look up active galaxies or active black holes you'll get an explanation for these axial jets of particles and radiation due to the spiralling accretion discs surrounding the black holes. Tunneling accurately predicts radioactive decay and various other quantum mechanical effects. The only apprehension is the crude 'marriage' of QM and GR to explain Hawking radiation. By the way, I can't show you an image of air either. Do you doubt its existenc ?? Or are the effects it produces enough to satisfy you ??

First of all, there is no such thing as a rest frame. All uniformly ( ie non accelerating ) moving frames can be considered as if at rest. Second, all motion is relative ( hence the name relativity ). If one frame is moving relative to another, observers in each ftame will see the other frame's time slow down, and even stop if it were possible to have a relative speed between frames equal to c. You can call it suspended animation or what ever you want, but the time dilation is only visible to the observer in the other frame. In your own frame everything happens as normal to the observer. If you don't want me to complicate matters with acceleration, then don't bring up the twin paradox. If one twin leaves earth, he has to accelerate to relativistic speed, then decelerate, turn around ( angular acceleration ), accelerate back to relativistic seped and then decelerate once reaching earth. It is only then that he can compare ages with his twin who stayed behind and find the age discrepancy. Until that point things have proceeded as normal for both twins. So you tell me, how do you disregard acceleration ??

The 'metallicity' does not indicate age in the simplistic manner you describe. Slow burning red giants with lifetimes much higher than our sun ( about 10 billion yrs ), were formed of the primordial 75% hydrogen / 25% Helium. Blue stars burn much hotter and faster, in the hundreds of millions of yrs. The first generation has already formed and died by the violent process which creates the heavier elements, novas and supernovas. These violent events trigger compression waves in surrounding gas clouds and 'seed' new stars which have a higher metallicity. How does that fit into your theory ???

The 'continuous streams of ejected matter' do not originate from inside the event horizon. No, Hawking radiation has never been observed, but it is on pretty firm grounding. Any particle can cross a potential barrier of higher energy than it possesses. In quantum mechanics it is called tunneling.

Its been almost 90 yrs and people still try to analyse quantum situations by comparing then to everyday situations or objects like decks of cards ( although I thought Bill's example was an excellent interpretation ).

That kind of speculation has no scientific basis. But if I was to guess, the situation you describe might result in the death of all unicorns, I joke, but a non-sensical question usually gets a non-sensical answer.