Cosmic Censorship

[Obnoxious]

Okay, we know that when a small star runs out of nuclear fuel, it compresses to a white dwarf (or brown dwarf >_>) and no more because of the Exclusion Principle. And bigger stars compress all the way down to a black hole because their mass is too large, they overcome the Exlusion Principle due to extreme mass and gravity. Now, God decides to hide the singularity from the rest of the universe via the black hole's powerful suction, so that the singularity can never be seen by human eyes. However, here's my question, I read somewhere that Stephen Hawkings lost a bet because his friends managed to prove that it is in fact possible to see a naked singularity. Can someone please explain how?

[1veedo]

Hawking used to believe that gaining info from a black hole was impossible:

ie, all information is lost. I still have one of his books that say this.

 

However, Hawking was wrong. It is in fact possible to gain information from the dark depths of a black hole.

 

The conservation of information holds true even in a seemingly inderthermic envirement.

[ed84c]

a brown dwarf is a failed star.

 

scroll to information problem.

[[Tycho?]]

Hawking used to believe that gaining info from a black hole was impossible:

ie' date=' all information is lost. I still have one of his books that say this.

 

However, Hawking was wrong. It is in fact possible to gain information from the dark depths of a black hole.

 

The conservation of information holds true even in a seemingly inderthermic envirement.[/quote']

 

This isn't why Hawking lost the bet I believe. There is some technicalicy that allows a so called "naked singularity". However, it would require conditions such that such a thing would never actually form.

[swansont]

Hawking used to believe that gaining info from a black hole was impossible:

ie' date=' all information is lost. I still have one of his books that say this.

 

However, Hawking was wrong. It is in fact possible to gain information from the dark depths of a black hole.

 

The conservation of information holds true even in a seemingly inderthermic envirement.[/quote']

 

I don't think information is a conserved quantity. What is inderthermic?

[Obnoxious]

What exactly are the conditions needed to observe a naked singularity in a black hole?

And regarding the brown dwarf, it too will eventually run out of fuel right? So eventually, it should probably compress too later.

[1veedo]

I don't think information is a conserved quantity. What is inderthermic?

Hm, I thought there was. There are creationists arguing such to 'disprove evolution'

http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/digital_philosophy/11_conservation_of_information.htm

 

Google found a talk origins article on this too.

 

Not like the conservation laws however (energy and matter), information cannot be destroyed (though it can be created). This is a natural consequence of entropy. (ie, if it decreases locally then it must increase someware else)

 

In Chemistry, an endothermic reaction is when heat is taken from the surrounding area as opposed to radiating heat: heat is taken in by the system. I used this to denote that black holes do not give off more heat then they take in.

[swansont]

Hm' date=' I thought there was. There are creationists arguing such to 'disprove evolution'

http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/digital_philosophy/11_conservation_of_information.htm

 

Google found a talk origins article on this too.

 

Not like the conservation laws however (energy and matter), information [b']cannot be destroyed[/b] (though it can be created). This is a natural consequence of entropy. (ie, if it decreases locally then it must increase someware else)

 

In Chemistry, an endothermic reaction is when heat is taken from the surrounding area as opposed to radiating heat: heat is taken in by the system. I used this to denote that black holes do not give off more heat then they take in.

 

Creationists proposing "conservation of information" is a really, really, reeeaaally bad argument to make in support of it being true. But their argument (at least the ones I've seen) is that "information" can't be created, and can only be destroyed, because of entropy. But there is no such law.

 

If it can be created, it is not a conserved quantity. Gotta come up with a different description.

 

I know what an endothermic reaction is. I was wondering what an inderthermic reaction was. It didn't seem to be an easily made typo, but I guess that's all it was.