Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 10/17/14 at 1:51am UTC, wrote Funny, This title is so funny! Never mind the black hole! Who knows what...

John Merryman: on 3/9/14 at 16:23pm UTC, wrote Akinbo, It will be interesting to see how the narrative arc of this story...

Akinbo Ojo: on 3/9/14 at 9:07am UTC, wrote Indeed more theater than physics, but at whose expense? Little wonder the...

John Merryman: on 3/9/14 at 1:15am UTC, wrote I think at some point it really has become more theater than physics. Here...

Akinbo Ojo: on 3/8/14 at 18:34pm UTC, wrote Please who is saying the truth. Seth Lloyd: (towards end of presentation...

Steve Agnew: on 3/8/14 at 15:33pm UTC, wrote "There's also a story I wrote for Nature last year on the firewall debate,...

Plato Hagel: on 3/8/14 at 15:05pm UTC, wrote The problem is if you hope to gain information from symmetry, entanglement...

Akinbo Ojo: on 3/8/14 at 11:32am UTC, wrote John, Many things are attributed to Einstein which he did not say. And I...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "I wonder why there is no interpretation of QM that says the wave function..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Re.macroscopic objectivity: How an outcome is to be called, the method..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Jahangir kt: "A great website with interesting and unique material what else would you..." in Our Place in the...

Steve Dufourny: "I am going to tell you an important thing about the aethers. I thought that..." in Alternative Models of...

halim sutarmaja: "dewapoker hadir untuk semua pecinta game poker dengan teknologi terbaru dan..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi BLOGS
November 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Video: Seth Lloyd, "What Happens When You Fall Into a Black Hole?" [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Mar. 4, 2014 @ 21:19 GMT
Some of you may have noticed that I enjoy writing about the question of what happens when you fall into a black hole. At the recent FQXi meeting in Vieques, Puerto Rico, "quantum mechanic" Seth Lloyd talked through this problem and discussed a way to potentially escape a black hole, first proposed by Horowitz and Maldacena, which uses quantum teleportation to smuggle information out--but also violates some quantum laws, in return.

Here is Seth, describing it in his inimitable style. He also explaining why, if you are unlucky enough to cross an event horizon, you shouldn't try and fire up the engines of your rocket and accelerate away from the singularity…because you'll only die faster.



For more about the debate over the fate of an unfortunate astronaut heading into a black hole, here's Anil Ananthaswamy's story about Steve Giddings' research, "Black Holes: Paradox Regained." There's also a story I wrote for Nature last year on the firewall debate, based on the work of Joe Polchinski, Don Marolf, Giddings and others, which pits general relativity against quantum physics--and tries to answer whether the space traveller would be spaghettified, as traditionally thought, or burnt to a crisp at the event horizon. And a follow-up discussing Stephen Hawking's take on the whole issue.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Mar. 4, 2014 @ 23:14 GMT
Hasn't it ever occurred to these mathematical platonists that a black hole is a mathematical description of a very real vortex and normal vortices don't make everything disappear into some other dimension. They shoot it out the poles. And there are very real cosmic jets and bubbles of energy shooting out the poles of galaxies and neutron stars have radio waves pouring out of them!!!!

There is no mention of this in any discussions of black holes. Just this stuff about information disappearing etc. I think something is being seriously ignored in all the abstraction.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Mar. 5, 2014 @ 00:04 GMT
If you cross the event horizon, you won't have to worry about turning on your engines. The black hole will rip you apart and turn you into gamma rays.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Darrell Burgan wrote on Mar. 5, 2014 @ 06:06 GMT
I'm not sure I understand why it is verboten for information to be destroyed in nature. Incinerating a hard drive would certainly seem to have the practical effect of destroying the information on it, no? Isn't the fact that entropy of any system is always increasing the same thing as saying that information content of the system is always decreasing? I'm not getting it ... :-)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 5, 2014 @ 11:03 GMT
Darrell,

It is the premise of the topology/'fabric' of spacetime that all events exist out there on the fourth dimension and are every bit as real as what is experienced as the present moment and that the sense of the present point in time is as subjective as one's point in space. The monumental logical fallacy of this is the effect of time is being created by stuff moving around and thus changing configuration. It directly contradicts another basic physical premise, that energy is conserved, since reality requires energy as the medium for information, creating new information means destroying the prior information that energy had been manifesting. The hard drive of life only has so much space....

A point I keep making is that while we, as individual points of reference, experience change and time as a narrative sequence of events and so the present seems to move from past to future, it is actually this changing configuration of what exists, that turns future into past. Potential precedes actual. Tomorrow becomes yesterday. That way, it makes perfectly good sense that all clocks run at their own rates, since they are individual actions and the world doesn't branch out into multiple realities, with every quantum, or any other probability, because it is the coalescing of these probabilities which creates the actuality of the present form. Suffice to say, this goes against the current belief system, so it gets no traction.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Darrell Burgan replied on Mar. 6, 2014 @ 06:22 GMT
Well I suppose if one could stand outside of spacetime and measure the information content held within the entirety of spacetime, from the beginning of time to the end (whatever *that* is), then yeah I could see the notion that the total information content of that spacetime is a constant.

If that is what is being referred to when I read that information cannot be destroyed, then I suppose that makes some sense, although I might question the usefulness of such a concept.

When I read about things like the heat death of the universe, my interpretation is that not only is that the entropic maximum of the universe, but it is also the nadir of information content. If the universe is maximally homogeneous and minimally energetic, then it seems to me there is very little information left at all.

As to your point about time being an emergent phenomenon, I'm not totally understanding what you're saying, but I have long suspected that what we call the flow of time is just an emergent phenomenon. If one could again step outside spacetime and look at the causality graph of the universe, back to the root cause, and simply draw the relationships between events, an arrow of time naturally emerges from the causal relationships themselves. I.e. cause/effect is not something that occurs because of time; time is something that occurs because of causality. Well, anyway, it makes sense to me. :-)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 7, 2014 @ 11:00 GMT
Darrell,

Consider how much information is a premise of specific spatial position, focus, intake, etc. and when you start combining perspectives and piling on the intake of information and the energy manifesting it, this more 'objective' information quickly turns to white noise itself and information is lost. Like leaving the shutter open on a camera. So the whole concept of getting outside the universe and looking in, looks extremely superficial. Not only is information destroyed by the process of change, it often isn't as transferrable as is currently presumed. This presumption of the permanence of information grows out of the idea that the same information can be recorded on different media, then grew to the presumption that the medium isn't necessary and everything is only information. It from bit.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Domenico Oricchio wrote on Mar. 5, 2014 @ 14:57 GMT
I am thinking (I am not an expert of black hole) that the problem seem that the entangled particles emitted in the evaporation is captured from the inner of the black hole; but if the energy of the gravitational field of the black hole is transferred in a pair production that in a finite time is emitted in the opposite side of the black hole (so that the black hole is like a delayed pair producer in the vacuum) then the there is no problem, because there is not a theoretical problem in the vacuum production.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Mar. 5, 2014 @ 17:44 GMT
Hi Zeeya,

I've been casually following this issue since your excellent Nature article last year. As one might guess, I am on Hawking's side -- and I think he did a great job of emphasizing and explaining CPT conservation in this important context. The sound from Hawking's lecture was too distorted for me to watch the whole thing. I stood it long enough to hear Jim Hartle's question (but not Hawking's reply), "The chaotic nature of the collapse -- what would be the signature in the dual field theory?" (He means AdS/CFT.)

Not knowing how Hawking answered (if someone caught it, please chime in) -- I venture that elimination of the singularity would leave the Minkowski spacetime metric signature + + + - intact, even without a singularly smooth path, because the two-point correlation is, I think, time-conserving even given chaotic action. As Herzog & Son explain:

"Since our goal is to reproduce the Schwinger-Keldysh propagator, which is defined with contour time ordering, it is natural to impose the condition that positive frequency modes should be purely ingoing at the horizon in the R quadrant while negative frequency modes should be purely outgoing at the horizon in the R quadrant."

The L modes vanish in the R quadrant, and the R modes vanish in the L quadrant.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Mar. 6, 2014 @ 03:48 GMT
Another point about vortices, is they are about the spin, not what is at the center, which is the eye of the storm, so to speak. Consider that gravity is a cumulative effect of all the mass and not just a point at the center. If you get to the center of the earth, there isn't some tiny black hole pulling you ever further in, because the total gravity of the whole planet has canceled out and it's...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 6, 2014 @ 10:07 GMT
Seth Lloyd: "What Happens When You Fall Into a Black Hole?"

Akinbo speaking Einstein's mind: "Nothing will happen!". "This is because every activity you can think of, be it 'struggling', 'death', 'stretching and being torn apart', 'escaping' takes an infinite amount of time to complete". "And if you insist an activity does happen to you as you fall into the hole, please tell us how long...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 6, 2014 @ 11:01 GMT
Akinbo,

Peel away the abstractions and think what is happening. In GR, time has stopped at the speed of light. Think about what that means. Basically light has no internal action therefore no clock, but its still light, for God's sake!!! Does that mean that when I throw a log on the fire, time slows for the log, as it turns to light? So when you fall into a black hole and are accelerated to the speed of light, it means you are light. And yes, your clock will stop, but your clock will stop, so you won't know it, because thought is a function of sequence, ie. time.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 7, 2014 @ 19:10 GMT
Well to some extent correct but in some other perspective not so.

"Basically light has no internal action therefore no clock, but its still light".

Light has a frequency and whatever has a frequency has a period. And whatever has a period can be deemed to have a clock of its own.

If you agree that, "yes, your clock will stop, but your clock will stop, so you won't know it", then if I had intended to use as clocks 'the time it will take me to struggle before being torn apart', 'the time between when I enter the hole and when I eventually breathe my last and die', 'the time it will take me to escape', my intention would become futile as none of these activities can be completable in a finite time.

Mind you not that I am a fanatic of GR, but it is sometimes necessary to use the arguments of its fanatical proponents to destroy their positions as it brings out the absurdities in their claim. Many while claiming to support GR even contradict Einstein's position as I pointed out in my post. Thankfully, one of the proponents has started recanting for which he is to be commended. I refer to Stephen Hawking's humility.

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 7, 2014 @ 21:29 GMT
Akinbo,

I agree, but take that up with Einstein. It's his contention that for a clock traveling at the speed of light, time has stopped. Obviously for those of us observing light, it has a frequency and so can be used as a clock, but if you are traveling with it, you won't observe it.

When we measure time, we measure action and obviously light is quite active and simply being in a position where that activity is not observable doesn't negate it, but as with any model, if you start asking questions it's not designed to answer, then the answers won't make sense.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Plato Hagel wrote on Mar. 8, 2014 @ 15:05 GMT
The problem is if you hope to gain information from symmetry, entanglement as a process is eventually lost. Conformal field theory from the boundary hopes to gain insight to a fifth dimensional perspective, maybe as a graviton in a bulk space, so we are definitely looking to a description of the interior.

Jet manifestation is a reorganization process to a finality of the black hole and any new information is disseminated back into the cosmos as a anti-symmetrical entropic realization.

"I want to discuss today reflect a different perspective: one that regards computation as no more “arbitrary” than other central concepts of mathematics, and indeed, as something that shows up even in contexts that seem incredibly remote from it, from the AdS/CFT correspondence to turbulent fluid flow. See: Recent papers by Susskind and Tao illustrate the long reach of computation"

From one black-hole to another, equals the end? Perfect symmetry so it can be born again...how nice. :p)

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1697

See also: http://www.eskesthai.com/2014/03/laminar-flow.html

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Mar. 8, 2014 @ 15:33 GMT
"There's also a story I wrote for Nature last year on the firewall debate, which pits general relativity against quantum physics--and tries to answer whether the space traveller would be spaghettified, as traditionally thought, or burnt to a crisp at the event horizon. And a follow-up discussing Stephen Hawking's take on the whole issue."

All of this black hole stuff is fun, but the bottom line is without a unified gauge, there really is no meaning in combining a GR spatial singularity without phase with the quantum reality of particles with phase coherence. And of course the black hole somehow has completely stopped spinning and lost its accretion disk and polar jets as well.

In my physics, accretions known as black holes are more like boson stars and falling into a boson star is not a good idea just like falling into a neutron star or any star really or even a planet, for goodness sake. Once you have a unified gauge, all action is due to exchange forces and there are no longer any of the pesky singularities of GR.

Time and space dilation still occurs in my physics, but it is only atomic time that stops and fermionic matter that ends inside of a boson star...boson matter and proper time both continue as usual, so the result is much more boring. Asking what goes on inside of a boson star is like asking what goes on inside of a quark pair. That is simply where the universe ends.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Brodix Merryman wrote on Mar. 9, 2014 @ 01:15 GMT
I think at some point it really has become more theater than physics. Here is an interesting article in Nautilus this month;

"When working at the frontiers of knowledge, pondering questions of time and space that we can hardly intuit or visualize, cold logic and strict adherence to experiment and falsifiability might not be enough. But then the trick is to invent and imagine without losing sight of the fact that this is what we’re doing. We’ll probably find that our inventions are wrong, precisely because they tend to come from an old canon. But hopefully they’ll be wrong in a good way, and illuminate the path to a deeper understanding of the universe."

At some point there has to be a bit of a reset.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Mar. 9, 2014 @ 09:07 GMT
Indeed more theater than physics, but at whose expense? Little wonder the politicians have started wondering whether all those grants to physics are worth the tax payer's money. Contradictory statements even within the physics establishment without any attempt to harmonize positions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Mar. 9, 2014 @ 16:23 GMT
Akinbo,

It will be interesting to see how the narrative arc of this story does play out. If this was finance, we would certainly be in bubble territory.

Regards,

John M

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Oct. 17, 2014 @ 01:51 GMT
Funny,

This title is so funny! Never mind the black hole!

Who knows what is really happening when we fall.... period?

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.