Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #699388 > unrolled thread

Hawking on the conservation of information

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Hawking on the conservation of information Musatov <tomusatov@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 18:47 -0700
    Re: Hawking on the conservation of information Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-20 21:00 -0500
      Re: Hawking on the conservation of information Musatov <tomusatov@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 05:32 -0700
        Re: Hawking on the conservation of information Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-21 10:32 -0500
          Re: Hawking on the conservation of information Musatov <tomusatov@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 08:52 -0700
            Re: Hawking on the conservation of information Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-21 12:19 -0500
              Re: Hawking on the conservation of information Musatov <tomusatov@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 10:28 -0700
              Which Hawking are we talking about ? Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-08-21 14:18 -0700
                Re: Which Hawking are we talking about ? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-21 16:23 -0500
                  Which Hawking are we talking about ? Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-08-21 14:49 -0700
                    Re: Which Hawking are we talking about ? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-21 17:22 -0500
                Re: Which Hawking are we talking about ? Musatov <tomusatov@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 14:47 -0700
                  When ? Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-08-21 14:52 -0700
                    Re: When ? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-08-23 16:39 -0700
    Re: Hawking on the conservation of information benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 09:27 -0400
      Re: Hawking on the conservation of information Musatov <tomusatov@gmail.com> - 2018-08-21 07:59 -0700
    Re: Hawking on the conservation of information mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-23 17:56 -0700

#699388 — Hawking on the conservation of information

Is there any way Hawking could have been right about black holes annihilating information HERE, but perhaps storing it somewhere not here?

(Perhaps the very act of annihilating information in our realm could be what stores the information in another....)

Any thoughts from the community?

Thanks,
Musatov

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#699390

On 8/20/2018 8:47 PM, Musatov wrote:
> Is there any way Hawking could have been right about black holes annihilating information HERE, but perhaps storing it somewhere not here?
> 
> (Perhaps the very act of annihilating information in our realm could be what stores the information in another....)
> 
> Any thoughts from the community?
> 
> Thanks,
> Musatov
> 

Hawking did not say that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699436

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 9:00:16 PM UTC-5, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/20/2018 8:47 PM, Musatov wrote:
> > Is there any way Hawking could have been right about black holes annihilating information HERE, but perhaps storing it somewhere not here?
> > 
> > (Perhaps the very act of annihilating information in our realm could be what stores the information in another....)
> > 
> > Any thoughts from the community?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Musatov
> > 
> 
> Hawking did not say that.

No, Hawking at first said the information was destroyed. I was asking if by such means could the information destroyed here and recorded elsewhere in the process.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699455

On 8/21/2018 7:32 AM, Musatov wrote:
> On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 9:00:16 PM UTC-5, Sergio wrote:
>> On 8/20/2018 8:47 PM, Musatov wrote:
>>> Is there any way Hawking could have been right about black holes annihilating information HERE, but perhaps storing it somewhere not here?
>>>
>>> (Perhaps the very act of annihilating information in our realm could be what stores the information in another....)
>>>
>>> Any thoughts from the community?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Musatov
>>>
>>
>> Hawking did not say that.
> 
> No, Hawking at first said the information was destroyed. I was asking if by such means could the information destroyed here and recorded elsewhere in the process.
> 

if it is destroyed it is gone.

  and then review what Hawkings meant by "information"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699457

My point was some mechanism where destroyed here=saved there. So no, not actually destroyed, just to us inaccessible. (Hawking asserts information requires energy-- so would that imply if energy is conserved so is information?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699459

On 8/21/2018 10:52 AM, Musatov wrote:
> My point was some mechanism where destroyed here=saved there. So no, not actually destroyed, just to us inaccessible. (Hawking asserts information requires energy-- so would that imply if energy is conserved so is information?)
> 

faulty logic.

information requires energy
energy is conserved
therefore information is conserved

a man has two legs
a monkey has two legs
therefore all men are monkeys.


energy is conserved only means the magnitude of energy is conserved, not
the form of energy, not the structure, nor type.

and again, what "information" is Hawking actually talking about ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699460

Is the information referring to the mass or energy?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699480 — Which Hawking are we talking about ?

> what "information" is Hawking actually talking about ?

Which Hawking are we talking about ?
He changed his opinion over the years.

In the end, his book and TV series said SuperDeterminism is real,
he said no one can go backwards in time, not even via wormholes,
and he said black holes don't hide information from us.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699482 — Re: Which Hawking are we talking about ?

On 8/21/2018 4:18 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>> what "information" is Hawking actually talking about ?
> 
> Which Hawking are we talking about ?
> He changed his opinion over the years.
> 
> In the end, his book and TV series said SuperDeterminism is real,
> he said no one can go backwards in time, not even via wormholes,
> and he said black holes don't hide information from us.
> 

but the information does not get out.  you have to go there to look at it.

as you approach the surface of a black hole, time approachs 0 so things
fall to the surface of the black hole and stay stuck there.  I doubt
that any  "information" is actually readable as the gravity is sky high,
near the surface pulling apart everything, and crushing it together.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699485 — Which Hawking are we talking about ?

> > Hawking said black holes don't hide information from us.
> 
> but the information does not get out.  you have to go there to look at it.
> as you approach the surface of a black hole, time approachs 0 so things
> fall to the surface of the black hole and stay stuck there.

A true black hole, an _ ideal black hole,
can't exist because it'd have zero entropy.

No one has ever, nor could ever, _ measure zero entropy,
with _ infinite precision.  
And, if we can't measure it, then it's random, unknown.

From our perspective, here on earth,
an _ infinite amount of time passes before 
a falling object reaches the event horizon.

But, before then, the black hole evaporates, 
and all information is returned to us.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699490 — Re: Which Hawking are we talking about ?

On 8/21/2018 4:49 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
>>> Hawking said black holes don't hide information from us.
>>
>> but the information does not get out.  you have to go there to look at it.
>> as you approach the surface of a black hole, time approachs 0 so things
>> fall to the surface of the black hole and stay stuck there.
> 
> A true black hole, an _ ideal black hole,
> can't exist because it'd have zero entropy.

a black hole does have a quantifiable entropy, which can decrease by
thermal radiation at the expense of dumping that lost entropy into the
surrounding universe.


> 
> No one has ever, nor could ever, _ measure zero entropy,
> with _ infinite precision.  
> And, if we can't measure it, then it's random, unknown.
> 
> From our perspective, here on earth,
> an _ infinite amount of time passes before 
> a falling object reaches the event horizon.
> 
> But, before then, the black hole evaporates, 
> and all information is returned to us.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699484 — Re: Which Hawking are we talking about ?

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 4:18:13 PM UTC-5, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> > what "information" is Hawking actually talking about ?
> 
> Which Hawking are we talking about ?
> He changed his opinion over the years.
> 
> In the end, his book and TV series said SuperDeterminism is real,
> he said no one can go backwards in time, not even via wormholes,
> and he said black holes don't hide information from us.

I was referring to our man at Cambridge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699486 — When ?

> > Which Hawking are we talking about ?
> > He changed his opinion over the years.
> > 
> > In the end, his book and TV series said SuperDeterminism is real,
> > he said no one can go backwards in time, not even via wormholes,
> > and he said black holes don't hide information from us.
> 
> I was referring to our man at Cambridge.

When ?
He changed his opinion over the years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699754 — Re: When ?

On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 2:52:31 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> > > Which Hawking are we talking about ?
> > > He changed his opinion over the years.
> > > 
> > > In the end, his book and TV series said SuperDeterminism is real,
> > > he said no one can go backwards in time, not even via wormholes,
> > > and he said black holes don't hide information from us.
> > 
> > I was referring to our man at Cambridge.
> 
> When ?
> He changed his opinion over the years.


He's at Westminster now.

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699440

On 8/20/2018 9:47 PM, Musatov wrote:
> Is there any way Hawking could have been right about black holes
> annihilating information HERE, but perhaps storing it somewhere not
> here?
> 
> (Perhaps the very act of annihilating information in our realm could
> be what stores the information in another....)
> 
> Any thoughts from the community?
> 
> Thanks, Musatov
> 
Can information be annihilated? Steam engine thermodynamics (as espoused
by Odd) teaches that entropy is always being created and thus is
increasing. However Post-Shannon understanding strongly suggests that 
entropy like energy is conserved. The indication seems to be that 
mechanical processes (like steam engines) tend to increase entropy while 
life processes tend to decrease it. Information is the missing entropy 
in the Maxwell demon.

I pretty much have no interest in what Hawking said or in black holes, 
but given the above theory it would seem one could surmise that black 
holes actually do not "annihilate" information but rather act as a 
portal transporting information (entropy) to another realm. This can be 
termed another "universe" or better perhaps is another "dimension" 
though there is a theory that black holes are really a portal between a 
realm where time is moving forward (ours) and another realm where time 
is moving backwards. Which is to say between particle and anti-particle 
universes.

Of course this is all speculation and worse involves concepts totally 
forbidden by the grand science metaparadigms and thus if you insist on 
pursuing them your career in science will likely be destroyed and be 
over forever.

Say no more.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699452

Thanks, I think you got to the heart of what I was getting at: could the processing through black holes (at first glance appearing to destroy information) actually be storing the information?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#699759

On Monday, August 20, 2018 at 6:47:06 PM UTC-7, Musatov wrote:
> Is there any way Hawking could have been right about black holes annihilating information HERE, but perhaps storing it somewhere not here?
> 
> (Perhaps the very act of annihilating information in our realm could be what stores the information in another....)
> 
> Any thoughts from the community?
> 
> Thanks,
> Musatov

TMI... Did Hawking say it...?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web