On 07 Jan 2012, at 01:33, Charles Goodwin wrote:

Black hole evaporation. I am thinking about some work by Hawking.

Could you point me towards it? I know Hawking conceded a bet on this
recently but I'm not sure why.

Search on "Hawking Preskill Thorne bet".
Or on "black hole information paradox 1997".



But $any* true erasing of information is forbid in any theory where QM
applies universally. Unitary evolution cannot erase information,
although it can hide it and makes it very hard to recompose.

True....but I don't suppose anyone is sure that QM necessarily applies
universally (altho I would bet that it did if I had to!)

In science we are never sure. But QM seems to be a very solid hypothesis. It is the first "exact" theory which has lived longer than 15 years, and indeed after about a century it remains undefeated. By QM I mean the formulation of QM without the wave collapse (Everett).



I think some cosmological observations confirm this. It makes QM
necessary to justify the existence and stability of Black Hole.

More information, please!!! :-)

Wheeler coined the term "black hole" to make the idea sounding ridiculous. Indeed Black Hole does not make much sense in classical general relativity. It would force nature into dividing number by zero. But quantum mechanics came to rescue them, and today it is generally admitted that black holes indeed exist, in many forms. A problem with QM arised: is information falling in a black hole irreversibly destroyed ? If that is the case, then both classical and quantum physics are incorrect, if not, it means black hole can restitute in principle every bit of information which felt in it. Apparently Hawking bet that the information might be destroyed, and ... lost the bet. I think you will find many informations on this by searching on terms like black hole, Hawking, Preskill. I am not an expert in cosmology (nor physics), so I have only layman ideas on this. I do have "theological-arithmetical" reason that the core of physics is highly symmetrical, though, and I do expect that the time symmetry of nature is something very basic. I explain why in the paper:

Marchal B., 2005, Theoretical computer science and the natural sciences, Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 2 Issue 4 December 2005, pp. 251-289.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064505000242

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to