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
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
Marchal B., 2005, Theoretical computer science and the natural
sciences, Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 2 Issue 4 December 2005, pp.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at