A Theory on The Information Paradox and Allow Multi-Universal Travel

[YT2095]

Bose-Einstein Condensates "slow" light by absorbing and re-emitting it. So, it's not really comparable.

 

I don`t think that`s true.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Slow_light

 

that suggest that it`s the Same light, just bounced around loads, unless I`m misreading something?

 

and this mentions transparency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetically_induced_transparency#Slow_light_and_stopped_light

[Klaynos]

Bose-Einstein Condensates "slow" light by absorbing and re-emitting it. So, it's not really comparable.

 

Is correct, often (like in glass) the photons are re-emitted nearly identically to the ones being absorbed but the process takes time so they appear to be travelling slower.

[YT2095]

oh well, there goes that Idea

[swansont]

I don`t think that`s true.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Slow_light

 

that suggest that it`s the Same light, just bounced around loads, unless I`m misreading something?

 

and this mentions transparency: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetically_induced_transparency#Slow_light_and_stopped_light

 

Slow light and "stopped" light are slightly different. The slow light arises from the really large changes in the absorption profile, leading to a rapidly changing index of refraction for group velocity, which gives rise to a classical explanation of slow light. I think quantum-mechanically it'll still be absorption and re-emission, but you've got lots of absorption (you're near resonance)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index

Scroll down to the 6th equation and ask yourself what happens if you create a sample where [math]\frac{dn}{d\lambda}[/math] is negative and large, and what must then be true of the group velocity in the preceding equation.

 

Lena Hau's paper explains it a little differently, but the conclusion is that the index they create is about a million times larger than the typical index for a normal sample of cold atoms

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/haulab/publications/pdf/Slow_Light_1999.pdf

 

Stopped light is absorption and the subsequent recreation of the pulse with the same properties. The light is absorbed and then recreated with the same coherent properties, but you need to shine a second laser on the sample in order to get the light to come out again. In the interim the energy is stored in atomic states, but it's done in a fashion that preserves the properties of the light (i.e. coherence and polarization).

 

The popular press generally simplifies this (and related "superluminal" phenomenon) past the point of being right.

[YT2095]

Thanks for that

 

could this happen in a Black hole though?

not for People and stuff, but for Light.

[Graviphoton]

Yourdad

 

A bit harsh eh? Looney claim? Turns out you found the qoute, so what was so looney about it in the end? It turned out to be quite sound.

 

Y2

 

When we say ''mangled,'' Hawking is referring to a multiparticle system, not a single photon. If a photon moved into a black hole, it would be spat out and return in the universe as a photon, because it is a fundamental particle.

[ydoaPs]

Are you serious? He said exactly the OPPOSITE of what you were claiming he did. ffs, man, learn to read.

[Graviphoton]

"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.''

 

Is what i said he said.

 

If you mean,

 

''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. ''

 

Then hold on. I said it was wrong. I just need to know why scientists haven't questioned the fact that if information leaves this universe, there is always information returning.

 

That's what i said. You learn to read.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

For your convenience, everyone, I have a link to the New Scientist article in question about Stephen Hawking's bet.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6193-hawking-concedes-black-hole-bet.html

 

That should clear things up a bit.

[Klaynos]

Occam's Razor, if there's a choice between something not happening, or something happening but we can't tell that it's happened and there's no way of showing it's happened we always go for the simplest one, which is it not happening...

[Graviphoton]

I my opinion Klaynos, Occams Razor is an incomplete assumption, and cannot apply to all logic.