Graviphoton Posted May 23, 2008 Posted May 23, 2008 This won't be long, and not too complicated. It was said that things could move into black holes and enter other universes. But this violated the information paradox, which states a thing cannot simply move out of this universe, because that information would dissappear entirely... Then in 2004, in july, Stephen Hawking restracted his theory, now saying that things cannot move into other universes, but instead, the information is mangled, and through a process of quantum tunelling, the information is spat back out. ... Before Hawking made his claim, and lost his bet, it was also known that if other universes existed, if a tachyon for instance, moved through a black holes and entered another universe, it was said that an antitachyon would come in from the other univese and enter our own. ... I ask Is it then not possible for two universes to exchange information, so long as the information exchanged is simultaneous and identical? If so, then information can leave the universe, because it is quickly replaced by an incoming information. ... Just a thought really...
ydoaPs Posted May 23, 2008 Posted May 23, 2008 If the information is simultaneous and identical, how is it distinguishable from the information just "bouncing" back from the black hole? How would the information leave the black hole when it comes to our universe?
Graviphoton Posted May 23, 2008 Author Posted May 23, 2008 Good question. I guess we couldn't know, unless we jumped into one for ourselves. The information could leave the black hole moving for a short perdiod of time at superluminal speeds. This can be done using the uncertainty principle.
ydoaPs Posted May 23, 2008 Posted May 23, 2008 The information could leave the black hole moving for a short perdiod of time at superluminal speeds. This can be done using the uncertainty principle. Are you sure about that? Got maths or references?
Graviphoton Posted May 23, 2008 Author Posted May 23, 2008 No, i don't how to. Maybe one day my course will cover it. But for reference, ''Baby Univeses and Black Holes'' ''In fact, we can make a photon travel faster than light for a very short period of time using the uncertainty principle...'' Stephen Hawking I would presume, that information has the same qualities as well under the correct circumstances. Also, Fred Wolf makes a reference to Hawking, [before] Hawking retracted his arguement about black holes... ''And energy and mass might not be the only thing to move into other universes. Hawking also says information too can leak.'' Parallel Universe
mooeypoo Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 Graviphoton, your ideas are very interesting, but I find myself repeating a myself in each and every one of your threads, so, instead of doing that again, I will break your thread up and show you what, exactly, is missing in it, to constitute a scientific (even if it is speculative) debate, without resorting to logical fallacies. This is not meant to bash, hurt or offend you. It is meant to show you what I mean, perhaps once and for all: It was said that things could move into black holes and enter other universes. By whom? The way I understand it, this is a fantastic fantasy, not really supported by astronomers. Provide your own resources. Stop providing non supported claims as premises. But this violated the information paradox, which states a thing cannot simply move out of this universe, because that information would dissappear entirely... I did find this: http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11745-could-black-holes-be-portals-to-other-universes.html But it (a) says that it SOLVES the information paradox (but opens other problems), and (b) not a scientific publication. Worth thinking about, sure, but again I had to do research for you. And again I found little. Then in 2004, in july, Stephen Hawking restracted his theory, now saying that things cannot move into other universes, but instead, the information is mangled, and through a process of quantum tunelling, the information is spat back out. Why do we need to look up the 2004 publication you are speaking of? Are we just supposed to trust your interpretation of it? We're not supposed to, not if we are to speak science. REFERENCES! ... Before Hawking made his claim, and lost his bet, it was also known that if other universes existed, if a tachyon for instance, moved through a black holes and entered another universe, it was said that an antitachyon would come in from the other univese and enter our own. Where?! Where is this written? Where do you bring these stuff?? You are raising theories that are not based on observational proof, they're based on interpretation of facts, and as such, there are conflicting theories out there. That's the entire point! But you seem to ignore them. Completely ignore all conflicts, all scientific debates, you just present ONE SIDE and start with it as if it's a premise. How do you expect anyone to answer your questions or entertain your ideas seriously when you ignore all conflicts, simplify the situation of the scientific community and present hypotheses as factual premises? ... I ask Is it then not possible for two universes to exchange information, so long as the information exchanged is simultaneous and identical? If so, then information can leave the universe, because it is quickly replaced by an incoming information. ... Just a thought really... No it isn't, it's an interpretation of a theory followed by a question, and as such, it needs to be provided with references to what you are talking about. Your expectation that we research each and every claim you make as if it is the most obvious thing ever is very annoying. Even if you think - even if you're SURE - that you speak the truth, and that this truth is absolutely supported by the entire field of whatever-science -- provide references. Saying "it's said", or "astronomers think", or "science says this", or "conclusion is" is MOOT. Absolutely irrelevant. Providing quotes from random doctors is moot as well, if you do not reference what THEY said. Scientists know this, which is why they reference, no matter how famous they are. The sad thing is that you are making it extremely difficult to start talking about the crux of your ideas, because half the time I'm trying to figure out what the heck it is you're referring to. I am answering this specific one, but this seems to go to most of your threads. You raise interesting ideas, it's just very hard to debate with you when you simplify things that should not be simplified, and treat hypotheses you like as if they are the factual data. I believe doing that is called the false dichotomy. It's a logical fallacy, and it's not valid in a theory, let alone as a premise. It's also why most of your threads from other forums end up in the Speculation forum. You cannot ignore conflicting theories, you cannot not-reference, and you cannot expect people to debate with you seriously or entertain your ideas seriously when you use logical fallacies to prove your points. It's really too bad to see the ideas go to waste like that. They are very interesting ideas. They're just presented in an unfair way of discussion. I do believe some of the things I said are on the forum rules. I suggest you go read them again. ~moo
Graviphoton Posted May 25, 2008 Author Posted May 25, 2008 ''By whom? The way I understand it, this is a fantastic fantasy, not really supported by astronomers.'' Stephen Hawking was the one who postulated the travel. He held onto the idea as well for a while, until rigorous complaints pushed him to accept he made an error. The error, of course, which you found, was Hawkin retracting his statement that things can move out of this universe. I tackle the idea by saying that the information, original as it might be is lost, but can be replaced by an identical information from another universe. It is said that if you raise your right arm, in another universe, you raise your left arm, following the notation ab><ba. That's why it was also said, if a tachyon left the universe through a black hole, an antitacyon would be entering our universe. If we where the tachyon leaving, we might be lucky enough to see the antitachyon pass us by. ''Why do we need to look up the 2004 publication you are speaking of? Are we just supposed to trust your interpretation of it? We're not supposed to, not if we are to speak science.'' Stephen Hawking Looses Bet, New Sceintist, 2005 July
mooeypoo Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 ''By whom? The way I understand it, this is a fantastic fantasy, not really supported by astronomers.'' Stephen Hawking was the one who postulated the travel. He held onto the idea as well for a while, until rigorous complaints pushed him to accept he made an error. The error, of course, which you found, was Hawkin retracting his statement that things can move out of this universe. I tackle the idea by saying that the information, original as it might be is lost, but can be replaced by an identical information from another universe. Postulated is the key word. The entire theory is a hypothesis, based on postulations. It's not a theory based on facts. This is something that is more than just 'useful' to know -- it means that we should take it as it is, and nothing more, a postulation. It's by far not a theory, nor is it a fact, nor is it the only theory or postulation out there. Nor is it accepted by mainstream science. We can postulate along with it and continue the thought-experiment, but all the while we need to remember this is NOT a fact or factual data. That said, there's also the matter of weighing sources according to their viability. Peer reviewed scientific publication is not the same as a magazine publication. The New Scientist is interesting, but it's not to be taken as proof either. Just like wikipedia is a source for a nice-to-know data, but by far is NOT a source for facts or scientific data. Peer review scientific publication isn't enough either, but it has more weight than a magazine. It is said that if you raise your right arm, in another universe, you raise your left arm, following the notation ab><ba. That's why it was also said, if a tachyon left the universe through a black hole, an antitacyon would be entering our universe. If we where the tachyon leaving, we might be lucky enough to see the antitachyon pass us by. Again.. where.. ''Why do we need to look up the 2004 publication you are speaking of? Are we just supposed to trust your interpretation of it? We're not supposed to, not if we are to speak science.'' Stephen Hawking Looses Bet, New Sceintist, 2005 July Again, New Scientist is a resource, but is not a peer review scientific resource paper, and Stephen Hawkin's idea is a postulation not a theory. It's far from being a fact. Use it as a premise, and your theory is a thought experiment. Thought experiments are nice, but we shouldn't forget that they are just that. Interesting thought experiments. Far from facts. Now all you need to do is make sure you reference and link to your claims all the time, and not wait for us to get annoyed by your lack of referencing to the sources of your theses. Also, please try to use the quote system, it's not very hard, and you seemed to get the hang of it for a while there -- it's hard to see who you reference inside the forums when you just pluck "" around what they said, and it doesn't refer back to the original post. ~moo
Graviphoton Posted May 25, 2008 Author Posted May 25, 2008 Because nothing needed to be reviewed mooey. He simply retracted his statement. No worries.
mooeypoo Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 Because nothing needed to be reviewed mooey. He simply retracted his statement. No worries. If nothing needed to be reviewed, why did you post a new thread? This is a DEBATE forum, not a preaching forum. If you want to debate, then stop making the decision for us about whether or not we want to review the statements you raise. ~moo
Graviphoton Posted May 25, 2008 Author Posted May 25, 2008 That's not fair. I am not preaching at all, and i am rapidly getting sick of speaking to you. This thread was in hope to get an intelligent discussion to a speculation i made. If this is so hard to fathom, do not reply. And i don't make up your mind for you. If i said Hawking retracted a statement, what is so devilish about that? Accept it, and stop throwing the toys out the play cot.
Graviphoton Posted May 25, 2008 Author Posted May 25, 2008 That things can move into black holes and enter other universes.
Graviphoton Posted May 25, 2008 Author Posted May 25, 2008 Yeh. His book 'A Brief History of Time' has the speculation in it. He even qoutes the bet he made (forget the other scientists name now), unto which they argued right up till july in 2004, where Hawking retracted his statement, and lost the bet. In other words, i am 110% sure. Now, there must be a reason why physicists haven't thought of the postulation i have brought forth, or possibly have, which might be the case, because it seems so simple. There must be a reason why this idea hasn't caught on already... a fundamental reason which reduces this entire post as wrong. I wish i knew what it was.
mooeypoo Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 There must be a reason why this idea hasn't caught on already... a fundamental reason which reduces this entire post as wrong. I wish i knew what it was. Perhaps that it's lacking evidence or corroborative data?
Graviphoton Posted May 25, 2008 Author Posted May 25, 2008 Or perhaps i am just wrong. The information contained within this universe, if leaving, and entering another universe, i showed that it was consistent with the theory that there needs to be an incoming information as well. As an explanation, i introduced tachyons... simply because they can move through black holes without any problems... but the incoming tachyon must be antiparallel. Does this mean the information is in fact anti-information? And if so a new question... can anti-information be suffice to ''fill the void.''???? Here's the bizarre part. I hate parallel universe theory.
mooeypoo Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 Or perhaps i am just wrong. The information contained within this universe, if leaving, and entering another universe, i showed that it was consistent with the theory that there needs to be an incoming information as well. As an explanation, i introduced tachyons... simply because they can move through black holes without any problems... but the incoming tachyon must be antiparallel. Does this mean the information is in fact anti-information? And if so a new question... can anti-information be suffice to ''fill the void.''???? Here's the bizarre part. I hate parallel universe theory. <sigh> You didn't show, you postulated. It is interesting, but it's not proven or corroborated by evidence. You can't possibly expect the scientific community to accept your postulation just because you think it's logical, or because you hate one of the competing theories. You, again, ignored our request for reference and proof, and instead of supplying them, you try to explain why they aren't needed. They are needed if you wonder why the scientific community doesn't accept them. And they are needed in this forums, because we are a science forums which operate under the scientific process, and avoids logical fallacies. ~moo
Graviphoton Posted May 25, 2008 Author Posted May 25, 2008 Well, actually, the diea there is a parallel incoming system, is not mere speculation. I refer you to the book ''Parallel Universes, 1985, Fred Alan Wolf'' There is an infinite amount of universes, so there MUST BE in an infinite amount of universes, where there is definately an incoming antiparallel source.
Graviphoton Posted May 25, 2008 Author Posted May 25, 2008 Leonard... that was his name... You kind find many references to this on google Nature of Black Holes and Quasars, The22 Oct 2006 ... Is Stephen Hawking right? Is Professor Leonard Susskind correct? ... The matter or information pouring into Black Holes truly leaves our ... http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/n/nature_of_black_holes_and_quasars_the%20.html - 16k - Cached - Similar pages Black Holes: Paradox in ActionLet's say we want to make our favorite politician into a black hole. ... The English physicist Stephen Hawking has suggested that many black holes may have ... http://www.qsl.net/w5www/blackhole.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages FAQ to SCI.PHYSICS on Black Holes by Matt McIrvinFrom thermodynamic arguments Stephen Hawking realized that a black hole should have ... into the hole to communicate with you outside the hole; nor could I ... antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/htmltest/gifcity/bh_pub_faq.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages Bottom line, is that Hawking made the propostion that things could move into black holes. He has now retracted that statement. I also recall reading about his bet before he lost it, in his book a brief history of time. Don't know the page, because i can't find the book... ... just look in the back of the books appendix for Leonard Susskind.
ydoaPs Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 Yeh. His book 'A Brief History of Time' has the speculation in it. He even qoutes the bet he made (forget the other scientists name now), unto which they argued right up till july in 2004, where Hawking retracted his statement, and lost the bet. In other words, i am 110% sure. Now, there must be a reason why physicists haven't thought of the postulation i have brought forth, or possibly have, which might be the case, because it seems so simple. There must be a reason why this idea hasn't caught on already... a fundamental reason which reduces this entire post as wrong. I wish i knew what it was. And this is why you need to use references when you make loony claims. Here is a quote from Hawking when he announced his losing the bet: "There is no baby universe branching off (inside a black hole), as I once thought. The information remains firmly in our universe. I'm sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes. If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe, but in a mangled form, which contains the information about what you were like, but in an unrecognizable state.''
YT2095 Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe, but in a mangled form, which contains the information about what you were like, but in an unrecognizable state.'' I`v been thinking about this myself, and I`m not entirely convinced that has to always be the case. I have a Hypothesis of my own regarding this exact thing (I`m glad this is in the Speculations area). now although my idea is based on a few assumptions, I derived them logically from what little I do know about physics, it goes like this; we know and have proven that bose einstein condensate can slow down light to almost walking speed, and then it re-emerges again at normal speed with its data intact. and because of the nature of a blackhole it seems reasonable to me that there would be an area inside one that would be bose einstein condensate like. so I propose that light (with information) entering this area, would come back out intact if it could come back out. does that sound at all reasonable?
ydoaPs Posted May 25, 2008 Posted May 25, 2008 I`v been thinking about this myself, and I`m not entirely convinced that has to always be the case.I have a Hypothesis of my own regarding this exact thing (I`m glad this is in the Speculations area). now although my idea is based on a few assumptions, I derived them logically from what little I do know about physics, it goes like this; we know and have proven that bose einstein condensate can slow down light to almost walking speed, and then it re-emerges again at normal speed with its data intact. and because of the nature of a blackhole it seems reasonable to me that there would be an area inside one that would be bose einstein condensate like. so I propose that light (with information) entering this area, would come back out intact if it could come back out. does that sound at all reasonable? Bose-Einstein Condensates "slow" light by absorbing and re-emitting it. So, it's not really comparable.
Recommended Posts