Mass in black holes (split from Mass)

[MigL]

I'm gonna have to agree with Itoero on this one guys...

Mass/energy is information, as is charge and angular momentum.
This information is conserved by GR, because the theory treats these quantities classically.
and for this same reason Quantum Mechanical quantities/information are not conserved by a classical theory.

Quantum mechanical information is encoded in the wave function, and as such determines its state at any other time, which is at odds with multiple states being reduced to a single state by the BH.

Still waiting on a quantum theory of gravity to clarify things...

Presently AdS/CFT duality, Holographic Principle and String theory say that quantum information must be preserved along with the unitary time evolution of the wave function,and so, Hawking radiation and BH evaporation must be modified to preserve it.
But since the wave function as an encoding mechanism for all states is an ( Copenhagen ) interpretation, some people ( R Penrose to be exact ) have argued that it is not necessary to preserve quantum information as quantum information/measurements are already non-unitary ( see Conformal Cyclic Cosmology ) and may even have found evidence for this in data from WMAP.

Still waiting on Quantum Gravity...

Still waiting...

 

 

 

[Strange]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Mass/energy is information, as is charge and angular momentum.
This information is conserved by GR, because the theory treats these quantities classically.

But the whole point is that Itoero claimed mass is not conserved "because it is information". Which is clearly wrong. 

[MigL]

Oooops,  my bad.

I guess I got the wrong impression  from reading the posts at the bottom of page 2.
( again, what happened to post numbers ? )

[Itoero]

On ‎17‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 9:47 PM, beecee said:

As I said.....

"GR also tells us that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory, so we can I believe logically assume that any BH is mostly just critically curved spacetime, with the mass (all the mass) at the core/singularity, in an unknown state. (which is at the quantum/Planck level". so we can I believe logically assume that any BH is mostly just critically curved spacetime, with the mass (all the mass) at the core/singularity, in an unknown state. (which is at the quantum/Planck level.

 

You can't use logic to define what's after an event horizon, especially not the black hole event horizon.

On ‎18‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 8:10 AM, Strange said:

But the whole point is that Itoero claimed mass is not conserved "because it is information". Which is clearly wrong. 

That's not what I said. A lot of things can be information: mass, energy, particles...(quantum states can also be information)it depends on the context they are in. And GR talks about the formation of black holes. There are many assumptions but there is zero evidence for what happens after the event horizon

[Itoero]

On ‎17‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 6:00 PM, Strange said:

For the same reason that everything falls towards the centre of the earth. 

This sums everything up. Do you people know and understand what an event horizon is?

I'm posting science, you people post misinterpretations based on science yet you seem to think I'm posting subjective beliefs  This discussion is not fair.

Edited September 19, 2017 by Itoero

[Strange]

55 minutes ago, Itoero said:

This sums everything up. Do you people know and understand what an event horizon is?

GR tells us that matter falls towards the centre of a black hole so I am not sure what your complaint is.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, Itoero said:

You can't use logic to define what's after an event horizon, especially not the black hole event horizon.

GR tells us that when the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory. That means that essentially all a BH is and consists of is critically curved spacetime, with the singularity at the core. That's logic, and I believe you certainly can use it.

Quote

. And GR talks about the formation of black holes. There are many assumptions but there is zero evidence for what happens after the event horizon

Again as GR tells us that once the schwarzchild radius is reached further collapse is compulsory, how is that not evidence that essentially a BH is just critically curved spacetime with the mass/singularity at the core...GR is still a fairly robust theory the last time I looked, so I see no reason to doubt that compulsory further collapse.

[Itoero]

On ‎19‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 11:08 PM, Strange said:

GR tells us that matter falls towards the centre of a black hole so I am not sure what your complaint is.

Citation? And that doesn't ''prove' anything. You can only make assumptions about the inside of black hole by knowing what's inside. If the holographic principle is correct ( and it seems like it is) then there is no centre in a bh.

 

On ‎18‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 8:10 AM, Strange said:

But the whole point is that Itoero claimed mass is not conserved "because it is information". Which is clearly wrong. 

I didn't say that. Mass is physical information. The bh info paradox concern all physical info.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Citation?

"Inside the event horizon all paths bring the particle closer to the center of the black hole. It is no longer possible for the particle to escape."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon

Quote

And that doesn't ''prove' anything. You can only make assumptions about the inside of black hole by knowing what's inside.

Of course it doesn't prove anything. On the other hand, it is not an assumption, it is current best (only) theory describing black holes.

Quote

 If the holographic principle is correct ( and it seems like it is) then there is no centre in a bh.

Citation needed. All the holographic principle says, as far as I am aware, is that the information inside the black hole can be represented on a 2D surface. Where does it say there is no centre?

 

[Strange]

On 17/09/2017 at 5:51 PM, Itoero said:

But why does the singularity only exists in the center of BH's? Why not at the event horizon?

In the case of a rotating black hole, the singularity is a ring around the centre.

There is a singularity at the even horizon in Schwarzschild coordinates (they only describe what happens outside a spherically symmetrical body). But you can use other coordinates where there is no singularity at the event horizon. But in all coordinates, the curvature becomes infinite at the centre.

[Itoero]

On ‎2‎-‎1‎-‎2018 at 3:10 PM, Strange said:

On ‎2‎-‎1‎-‎2018 at 3:05 PM, Itoero said:

?

"Inside the event horizon all paths bring the particle closer to the center of the black hole. It is no longer possible for the particle to escape."

There is no evidence for this, it's the idea from a smart man a long time ago. If you knew more about how physicists like Hawking and Susskind investigate this and what the current idea's are, then you would know the idea that "Inside the event horizon all paths bring the particle closer to the center of the black hole. It is no longer possible for the particle to escape." is probably wrong. GR doesn't give the absolute truth...

On ‎2‎-‎1‎-‎2018 at 3:10 PM, Strange said:

Of course it doesn't prove anything. On the other hand, it is not an assumption, it is current best (only) theory describing black holes.

Quote

That's not true...science evolves you know, things change. Not everything in GR is correct.

Hawking has the soft hair theory. And the holographic principle was invented by G t Hooft  and it was given a stringy look by Susskind. Those are ways to deal with the black hole info paradox. The stuff the GR says about BH has not much value anymore.

On ‎2‎-‎1‎-‎2018 at 3:10 PM, Strange said:

Citation needed. All the holographic principle says, as far as I am aware, is that the information inside the black hole can be represented on a 2D surface. Where does it say there is no centre

It states the universe is a hologram. Black hole event horizons are then boundaries which separate our observable 3D world from 2D info. Time and space are not present in 2D info...you shouldn't apply GR-logic to understand BHs.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Itoero said:

There is no evidence for this, it's the idea from a smart man a long time ago.

An idea that has been thoroughly tested so it is now a theory and not just an idea.

Quote

the idea that "Inside the event horizon all paths bring the particle closer to the center of the black hole. It is no longer possible for the particle to escape." is probably wrong.

Citation needed.

7 minutes ago, Itoero said:

GR doesn't give the absolute truth...

Of course not. This is science after all.

But currently it is the best we have.

12 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Not everything in GR is correct.

Nothing has yet found to be incorrect.

13 minutes ago, Itoero said:

It states the universe is a hologram.

No it doesn't. It says that the entropy of a volume can be represented on the surface of the volume. You have been reading too much popular science.

14 minutes ago, Itoero said:

.you shouldn't apply GR-logic to understand BHs.

And you should stop making stuff up.

[pavelcherepan]

12 hours ago, Itoero said:

There is no evidence for this, it's the idea from a smart man a long time ago.

Just about two years ago LIGO has detected gravitational waves from the merger of back holes that acted as black holes should in GR. And since then there were several more detections that match predictions very well. Seems like a good evidence that they exist and act as GR predicts.

 

12 hours ago, Itoero said:

Not everything in GR is correct.

And what would that be?

[beecee]

16 hours ago, Itoero said:

There is no evidence for this, it's the idea from a smart man a long time ago. If you knew more about how physicists like Hawking and Susskind investigate this and what the current idea's are, then you would know the idea that "Inside the event horizon all paths bring the particle closer to the center of the black hole. It is no longer possible for the particle to escape." is probably wrong. GR doesn't give the absolute truth...

I do not believe that is the case...of course if you have a reputable citation then give it. Hawking anyway of late, simply appears to be hypothesising on EHs, quantum effects and firewalls. None of that invalidates BHs despite some past mis-leading, sensationalistic headlines. Secondly, there is really no absolute truth in science. 

Quote

That's not true...science evolves you know, things change. Not everything in GR is correct.

So far GR has past every test thrown its way, and has made successful, validated predictions. I don't accept your baseless claim that not everything is correct as far as we know,  according to GR. At least at this time. 

 

Quote

Hawking has the soft hair theory. And the holographic principle was invented by G t Hooft  and it was given a stringy look by Susskind. Those are ways to deal with the black hole info paradox. The stuff the GR says about BH has not much value anymore

As I said, with regards to Hawking, his hypothetical is with regards to the EH and quantum effects and does not invalidate the GR BH concept. But of course I will listen to any reputable citation from any reputable expert that says the stuff about BHs as dictated by GR, is of no more value. In absence of any reputable citation or reference, I see your claim as a fairy tail.

Quote

 

It states the universe is a hologram. Black hole event horizons are then boundaries which separate our observable 3D world from 2D info. Time and space are not present in 2D info...

Sheer speculation at this time. BHs are now overwhelmingly accepted and evidenced particularly after recent observations.

 

Quote

you shouldn't apply GR-logic to understand BHs.

As far as I know, and I'm willing to be corrected, the BH is a solution of the equations of GR...so tell me, why then would you not apply GR logic?

[Itoero]

23 hours ago, Strange said:

And you should stop making stuff up.

The last time you said that, a theorem backed me up. This happened very often on this forum. People always say I'm wrong yet I'm very often backed up by science. I'm talking against faith-based beliefs...believe what you want.

 

[Mordred]

Too bad your understanding of many of the articles you claim back you up actually don't. This is often difficult to show as the proper details is under the math and not the written heuristic explanations that some of these articles use. The heuristic explanations are easily misinterpreted by many posters not just yourself and is a source of numerous misunderstood topics.

More often than not posters when looking for support tend to look for key words or expressions that support their claim but never realize the mathematics of those articles describe something else entirely than their own interpretation.

Edited January 14, 2018 by Mordred