Lost & Found

[authorgonal]

A raging argument of the last decade has been: Is information lost in black holes?

The point here is that rationality, cause and effect, could be 'interfered' with. Micro black holes as well as the millions of 'star' black holes, might be eating information almost anywhere. The result would be 'queer' events and gaps of continuity.

Whether or not we would recognise such in everyday life...

An attempt to prove that information is not lost relies on the idea that - at the event horizon - there remains an image of 'all that fell in'. This is still the general consensus. This view rescues physicists from - to their mind - a nightmare scenario whereby a basic foundation of their laws of the universe is challenged.

S Hawking, who originally insisted information was lost in black holes changed his mind recently. The twist in the tail was that the information was still held in adjacent parallel universes that didn't have black holes. The twist is that in our version universe the information is still lost (though not from the multiverse).

Hawking's 'excuse' may be correct although perhaps it is a step too far in credulity in the absence of mathematical proof - he is still working on it. Unfortunately for us observers, the struggle he has to communicate is slowing down his work. We then have the irony of his thoughts as communicated becoming slower and slower; something like the slowing of time (to an outside observer) of an object falling into a black hole. We listen to Hawking's words slowing to infinity as he approaches his own black hole. It hardly bears thinking about as, just like the reality of black hole mechanics, to him he thinks as fast as ever!

Whatever, to me neither proposal has much merit::: See next post.........

[authorgonal]

The straw grasped by the establishment is that information is preserved at the event horizon. A desperate idea.

This relies on a simple model having the event horizon as a real fixed (at any one time) item - like say the skin of a balloon. It assumes this model and then proceeds to imagine a 'projection' or surface image on the event horizon that contains all the information of everything that ever fell in.


The actual situation is very different in principle in my opinion. To understand my argument you need to visualise a black hole in terms of the curvature of space. At a distance from the black hole space is only slightly curved by the hole. The closer the hole is approached the more the curvature of space is increased.

My contention is that the event horizon, its position and radius, can be defined in terms of the curvature of space. That is, as the curvature increases then, as observed from the outside, space and time are rotated. It is then surely obvious that the event horizon - its position and size - MUST be determined by the position of the observer. SEE next post for my contention that curvature rotates through 360 degrees.

If the observer is positioned where space has been significantly
curved by the black hole then the event horizon - as it affects him - will be closer to the black hole centre than to an observer further away.

This is not to say that the event horizon is unreal or imaginary. Only that its reality as it affects an observer, other star or whatever, is dependant on position relative to the curvature.

O.k. so far? Now back to information.

Imagine then an observer positioned close but not in a black hole. Let's assume an object is sent to enter it and that we can observe its entry in detail. Conventional physics tells us that the further the object gets then the slower its time process - as observed by us - becomes. If we were able (light would be too dim) to see it at the event horizon (within a smigin) then its progress inward would appear to cease (along with its time process).

This scenario then is in simple terms the basis of a permanent image of information at the event horizon.

The flaw is that, to an observer further out the image cannot be seen as the event horizon is further out and the image is inside.
Clearly this apparent paradox results from a refusal to recognise the RELATIVE nature of the structure. What is real for one position is not real for another position.

You may like to challenge this on the basis that whatever position the observer is at there is always an image in the observer's reality.... see next post

[authorgonal]

And you would be correct in that a four dimensional 'view' of the whole structure would show a logical consistent structure. But let's have a look at the theoretical black hole structure as currently modelled in space curvature using a 2d surface (instead of a 3d surface, that is by dropping a dimension to enable our brains to visualise it).

It is always presented as a tornado like shape or a funnel shape. This is on the assumption that the collapse of a black hole continues until the singularity is encountered. The reverse is that our universe appeared from a point source. This is the result of 3d thinking. (Things are coming together and will until they meet). Lets escape and think 4d..


In 4d the curvature is increasing. Let's assume it will continue to increase until maximum curvature is at 90 degrees to flat space outside. This instead of the conventional 45 degree max curvature. In this scenario the event horizon is NEVER reached from the point of view of an object falling in until, compared to flat space outside, everything (space and time) has rotated 90 degrees before the curvature decreases. So, what if there is a curvature limit (instead of a singularity). What if, after this curvature limit the curvature gradually reduces? What if the curvature is a mirror image 'on the other side'? Instead of a singularity we have this situation but curves not v's : > <

Given the above curvature 'mirror image' the event horizon is crossed (by the object falling in) at the point of maximum curvature. However the coincidence of max curvature and event horizon (again, event horizon observed by the object falling in) has the effect of the object experiencing zero time before entering time again 'on the other side'.

Space then becomes continuous although time does not or does it? See next post........

[authorgonal]

Apologies for having to amend the previous post. It happens as I type as I think and 'invent' the logic. Occasionally this means a bit becomes garbled. Ha ha. Anyway re read and it should be clearer.

Next post describes time effects and separates time from the issue of lost information, er, I think...

[authorgonal]

Drifted a bit from the Information Paradox so better address it directly:


Because, in my view, space does not get destroyed by a singularity space is then continuous irrespective of black holes. Space continues uninterrupted to the internal black hole space. A space WITHOUT a singularity. The continuity of space, irrespective of event horizons then ensures information is not lost.

The model best imagined is perhaps the inflation of a balloon where at various points the skin is pushed through small restrictive rings to form an attached bubble. Imagine a sphere with attached spheres at various places on its surface. These spheres are not detachable but are attached at a 'ring' (remember the ring is a 2d vision of a 3d space).

Perhaps the bubbles have bubbles have bubbles. Not a blister packing material because each blister is separate in the packing material - more an inflatable bed

Hawking of course has shown that black holes can evaporate. He postulated rather big explosions at the end of black hole life.
These have not been observed even though for many the universe has lasted long enough for this to occur.

Rather than a catastrophic explosion - as a singularity reverses -we can imagine my 'no singularity' black holes emerging with a lesser puff when the physical mass becomes larger than the event horizon compared to surrounding flat space. However this would presumably result in rather large stars apparently appearing from nowhere - possibly explosively.

And this is a long way from the promised time issues. However, in a way both the pro 'event horizon' explanation and Hawking's Multiverse explanation are not mutually exclusive but neither address the fundamental issue. All just my opinion of Course.

If anyone is still reading I'll address the time stuff if requested....

[glactus]

Add the time stuff by all means.


Black hole