Agreed. So where does the lost information go? Singularity? How is a singularity possible in a 3 dimensional space?
Adding another dimension, is like creating a parallel universe model where gravity and energy are distributed between contingent parallel universes at all areas in the universe. Actually, mathematically, 3 additional dimensions may be necessary. Progressively the denser the object, the further it spans into parallel universes. In the situation of such an enormously huge star, it becomes unstable and has no where else to go but to sink into another far off parallel universe where the physics can support it. Of course the gravity of the traveling star leaves a huge bend or what we call a space-time continuum, or singularity.
What has happened is that star has become dark matter. Dark matter and energy are actually all of the invisible matter in the contingent parallel universes. The inability of light to break the gravitational barrier of these parallel universes is really what separates our universe from the contingent. However we are seeing enormous amounts of evidence for this from the experiments in particle accelerators. Doesn’t that settle better?
The answer which Einstein’s general relativity gives is that nothing ever moves “outward†“inside†the black hole - that is, beyond the so-called event horizon. The popular account („Gravitation is so strong that even light can’t escape) is, so to speak, only the “PG version†of what really goes on in a black hole according to general relativity:
Imagine that you draw a coordinate system with the time coordinate in the vertical direction and the radial coordinate (inward/outward with respect to the center of the black hole) in the horizontal direction. With a proper choice of units (for instance, seconds and light-seconds - instead of meters or yards) - the space-time paths (the so-called “world linesâ€) of light rays will appear as straight diagonal lines (every second, light travels one light-second - pretty obvious - far away from the black hole. If, on the other hand, you plot the motion of something that moves with a velocity smaller than the speed of light (that is, any material object) you get a curve whose slope is, at any point, greater than the 45 degrees of the world lines of light rays.
Now as someone or something starts to plunge into the black hole, something funny happens: Their coordinate system begins to tilt with respect to an observer smart enough to stay in a safe distance from the beast. At a particular distance from the center - known as the event horizon - the coordinate system of the daring astronaut falling into black hole has tilted so much - relative to his colleague who stayed behind - that the world line of light rays now point straight up. Which means that, if the daring astronaut shoots a beam of light outward at the event horizon it just manages to stay in place.
Beyond the event horizon the radial and the time coordinate exchange their roles: What is inward/outward to the observer, who stayed behind, is future/past to the poor guy, who took the plunge and vice versa.
This explains a) why, beyond the event horizon, nothing can go “outward†(because from the viewpoint an observer inside the black hole it would have to go back in time) and b) why nothing or no one that falls into the black hole can escape the singularity at its center (because for them the singularity is not a particular location - as it is for an outside observer - but rather a moment in time - the final one as far as they are concerned, the end of their little universe - sort of a “mini big crunchâ€)
This is of course a purely classical description - it does not consider quantum effects such as Hawking radiation.
I read some of his “for dummies” books and I still don’t get it. I thought nothing got out of there alive.
However, lets say Black Holes ARE coplannar to another dimension, only the other dimension has it’s own Black Hole in the same spot spewing shit back out through our Black Hole into our dimension and that shit is Hawking Radiation. Let’s say each respective Black Hole accelarates whatever beyond the speed of light which allows it to escape the Black Hole and it only slows down to the speed of light or less once it escapes the Black Hole and enters it’s respective dimension. Some of our dimensional shit is now spewing out into another dimension and the folks over there are trying figure out what it is and how it got out.
And, if the Hawking Radiation coming out both (or infinite) sides is less than what goes in, then the balance stays in the center as a sigularity until it just can’t handle it anymore, in which case it blows up into another new dimension with it’s own Black Hole in the same spot, spewing shit until it reaches some stasis again and starts building.
Yeah, perhaps Black Holes do spew matter into another dimension, but what can you argue about Hawking Radiation if a Black Hole wasn’t coplannar to another dimension?
I suppose Stephen Hawking implies that this radiation comes from a Black Hole in our dimension.
You got me. I reckon if anything escapes, then Black Holes aren’t everything they are cracked up to be.
On the other hand, while I have NO idea what “anti-matter” or “dark matter” or “dark energy” are (they are just terms I’ve heard), I figure if anything escapes from a Black Hole it would be the opposite of light, energy and matter. I can always handle the idea of arguing stuff I don’t know about.
Let’s say we are currently in a singularity, but some force that is in here with us, call it “perception,” allows us to percieve time, space, and the idea that we are not in a singularity. Maybe the stuff coming out of Black Holes is that stuff which allows us to percieve as we do.
It’s alright. Nobody does. We just know that per the current terms of general relativity, the current stability, layout, and motion of visible objects in our universe requires a lot more matter than we are seeing, hence the term dark matter. I can agree that the only thing that escapes a black hole would be the opposite of light, energy and matter; however, the opposite of these would be vacuum, right? I’m still really struggling to comprehend anti-matter.
That force is “light”. Ok. This is where it gets really out there and hard to explain but you seem to be seeing a similar picture. Remember how I said that the black hole is bending into a dimension perpendicular to time? Let’s go ahead and give that dimension the term “probability”. We currently exist in a singularity perpendicular to “probability” called “time”.
I can only agree with what you said earlier.
Makes perfect sense to me in any number of dimensions. This brings up an interesting point too. Despite popular belief, mathematically nothing should be able to enter the event horizon, just become at best infinitely closer. I don’t believe that black holes are actually sucking anything in, just shredding it into Hawking Radiation. Most of the matter that gets pulled towards event horizon will be slammed into the dimensional barrier that exist for all matter outside the event horizon and then exploded into Hawking Radiation.
The only thing that was sucked in was the highly dense star and it is now at the tail end of the black hole, in a far off parallel universe where the, slightly different more accepting physics, allows it to stabilize. So this black hole is now just a huge bend in space-time-probability, that extends like a pipeline through contingent parallel universes on one side to the other ultimately leading to the massive star that had at one time called our universe home.
That’s true, but it’s illustrative. I know when I first read about them they used a picture like that but cautioned as you just said, so every time I think about them, I remind myself of the sperical nature of them. But it would be real hard to draw one sperically and still get the gist of the sucking and the horizon. I have seen efforts and they are cool, but they don’t convey some the message you get with the two dimensional ones.
I guess I’m not properly able to explain myself. In 3 spacial dimensions, a star is a sphere. A black hole is nothing more than an extremely dense star, so it is a sphere as well. In fact it is so dense that the very elementary particles that make it up are no longer side-by-side, but are actually occupying the same space. We call this a singularity, or infinite density / zero volume. In this singularity, time(or entropy) is no longer possible. Meaning there is no movement. If you try this mathematically, it is impossible. Einstein among many other well known physicists did not believe it was possible. That’s why you always hear about the laws of physics breaking down inside of a black hole.
If you add another dimension of change, collinear to time, particles are no longer occupying the same exact space in a singularity but spreading out through this new dimension.
First of all that picture is not 2 dimensional, it is 3 (just not 4 or 5 like I would like to be). The picture is an easy way to geometrically describe effects in spaces beyond 3 dimensions. Because we can only perceive in 3 dimensions, we have to eliminate some of our x,y,z,t coordinates to visualizes how an extremely dense object would interact with this additional dimension, p.
There actually is a sphere in this depiction as well, just not visible. Imagine that picture as a flat stretchy sheet with an extremely dense cannon ball in the middle that is growing in mass. That flat stretchy sheet is a 2 dimensional representation of a 4 dimensional space-time. Now, imagine that sheet as a stack of sheets, each representing a contingent parallel universe. This adds the 5th dimension, probability. So this cannon ball begins to get so dense that it is better supported in a distant parallel universe. It sinks down through all of these parallel universes until it find one where it is stable. As a result, it leaves a gravitational trail through these contingent parallel worlds, that we see as a black hole.
See if that makes more sense as you re-read my previous post.
The pitcure is representing the black hole on a 2D plane. Yeah, there is a vantage point to it, indicating 3-Dimensions around it, but it’s like a photograph of a sheet of paper.
Matter is energy, and the parts that make up a proton are really smaller things moving really quickly in a spherical way, creating the illusion that a proton is a billiar-ball looking sphere. If you know this, you can see how there is lots more space inside a molecule than previously thought back in Einstein’s day.
We are not talking about molecules though. We are talking about the most elementary particles(whatever that may be) occupying the same exact space. It breaks every single current law of physics and just doesn’t make any sense. It is impossible. A true singularity is an impossibility.
I could always be wrong, but I prefer to follow Occam’s Razor, and adding another dimension collinear to time, seems to solve all of the resulting problems of black holes and singularities, including gravity, dark matter, uncertainty principal, and, of course, the quantum mechanics & general relativity gap which will work with as many dimensions as you throw at it.
btw, just to be clear on things, a single dimension can be perceived as a single line, two dimensions are perpendicular lines or a plane, 3 dimensions as a sphere, and all above are not demonstratable, but geometrically are considered hyperspheres. I’m know you know this. Just want to make sure we are all on the same page.
I’m not saying that we do know of the smallest particles. I’m saying the theory of an object being so dense that light cannot escape requires a singularity, and a singularity mathematically requires infinite density. Infinite density requires that the smallest elementary particles, regardless of what they are, occupy the same exact space.
But time and space would be shrunk, effectively shrinking those particles. Perhaps they do not actually occupy the same space, but no longer moving, and thus no longer really particles, but something else.
- far away from the black hole. If, on the other hand, you plot the motion of something that moves with a velocity smaller than the speed of light (that is, any material object) you get a curve whose slope is, at any point, greater than the 45 degrees of the world lines of light rays.
