Blackhole Symmetry

Olias

Is the amount of information taken in by a Blackhole, proportional to the amount given out?

Nereid

Welcome to Physics Forums Olias!

I'm not sure that I understand your question ... in what way do you think that black holes could 'give out' information?

Olias

Hi Nereid, well lets call an emission of a particle as 'information' recieved/given out (hawking rads), and all particles infalling/entering as being information taken in (Entropy/Area)?

Should I define it some other way?

Nereid

Ah, a question about the theory of black holes! If I may re-state it?

If a black hole evaporates completely, via Hawking Radiation, would the information content of a large enough chunk of space around the BH - encompassing all that went into the BH in its creation and all the radiation emitted in its evaporation - have a net gain of zero?

Let me add one question to yours: to what extent are both GR and QFT required for any answer to this question?

Dayle Record

Wouldn't a black hole, exactly match what it is attracting/devouring? If it is the antithesis of the matter it devours, doesn't it have to shape its self to meet the incoming?

Would there ever be enough stuff to overwhelm the black holes ability to absorb?

I need a physics lesson here.

Olias

Ok Nereid, give me the rate at which a particle coming out-of a Blackhole, obstructs a Particle that is inbound?

And while your thinking , can you tell me if the outbound Particle re-enters the Blackhole?
Lets keep to the Laws of Physics pertaining to Einstein..being that Blackholes are contained within(theorized) a macro cosmic entity such as Galaxies?

Thanks.

Loren Booda

If info out equals info in, why does the great quantum number variety from infalling particles only manifest as angular momentum, charge and mass ("No-hair" theorem) at the surface and with the radiation of the evaporating black hole?

Olias

There is I believe certain conditions that make Blackhole's more than just a fanciful idea.

In a early paper by Hawking et al, I do belive there are certain conditions that describe blackholes at different 'Times'. All descriptions are really 'Time' dependant. Example a Blackhole that radiates/output of (Hawking-Rads) can only do so if there is no 'input' obstructions, thus this would have to be 'time-stamped' to an early evolutionary epoch. The early Universe would be 'ripe' for blackholes spitting out particles at a constant rate, really speaking Blackholes that are emitting particles are really Whitehole's (Hawking phrase-Blackholes aint so Black!), this is the ideal production factory for particle creation at Time-Zero, the pre-bigbang.

Matter anti-matter production can be 'time-stamped' into a phase of matter evolution:

Anti-Matter goes into Blackhole = input >>>>
Matter comes out of Whitehole = output.

The process is creationary because of the Time-Phase at the 'bounce' stage of a decelerating previous epoch, one of which would be where Blackholes were 'really' black! For a Blackhole to be not emmiting particles (output) then it must be TAKING in matter/light, it is therfore reasonable to suggest that the prevailing epoch was a CONTRACTING one.

In this sense all matter/light is being absorbed into a Blackhole, its a conversion process that happens at regular intervals, we are percieving the Universe as expanding because the Blackhole remnant at the heart of our Galaxy is no longer taking in vast quantities of Matter/light?

My original question asked here?

edited spelling mistakes!

Olias

Can Whiteholes spit out Blackholes?

If one uses the Chandereskar limits, and state that Stars are Whiteholes, the the collapse of a certain Star produces a Blackhole, thus White holes can emit Blackholes.

The Particle horizon of a Blackhole, where viirtual pair-production occurs in a pre-Galactic-Bang can be envisiged as a Blackhole spitting out White-Holes..to and fro, the Entropic Pendulum so to speak!

Kip Thorne and Hawking are about to resolve a long standing issue

Olias

Important paper just out by Willium G Unruh and Ralf Schutzhold :http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0408009

Wave's_Hand_Particle

This just out:Olaf Dreyer∗, Fotini Markopoulou†and Lee Smolin ‡

on the 16th Nov:http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/...09/0409056.pdf

Wave's_Hand_Particle

The paper, although littered with spelling mistakes!..nevertheless deals with some really interesting problems with LQG.

The coming together of three major players in the development of this area of understanding, shows a very promising LQG evolution is still future bound.

Fotoni Markopoulou is of course of great interest, I, not only as an Observer of Femele Beauty, observe from a specific location, one that is paramount in the understanding of what we are and how we fit together.

Wave's_Hand_Particle

The link is actually here:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th?0409056.

Spin_Network

Information in? out?..shake it al' bout!

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504120

meteor

I took a quick peep to the abstract and was confused at first when I read about the Englert-Brout-Higgs mechanism, as I never had heard about this mechanism. The few entries in a google for this mechanism seems to hint that is a mechanism that grants mass to particles, so I have to deduce that is simply another name for the widely-known Higgs mechanism. Is hateful that differents names are assigned to the same process

Spin_Network

Yes, this I agree with.

What is/was?.. not well known is the whole aspect of this thread in its original question, which was posed by the author a number of months before the S W hawking furore at Dublin Conference, and dare I say it the author was pretty specific in asking the question?

Gerard ’t Hooft, will know if anyone does?..that Blackhole Interactions have been really making news in the last year or so,,this current paper by Gerard ’t Hooft, seems to be the most intelligent and interesting I have personally seen for a while..with the exception of D Marolf maybe.

Anyway this paper needs a thorough going over, a task I am trying to do, so thanks for the insight, I will be looking into it again.

Chronos

Since when did a singularity have a 'geometry'? I'm not saying it does, but I am saying you need a different coordinate system to explain it. That is the point t' hooft is attempting to make.