Which is more accurate polar coordinates or cartesian coordinates?I'm curious, is the Kurskal-Szekeres considered a more accurate representation than Scwarzchild that deals with a wider array of conditions, or should the one you use depend on your frame of reference? (external observer vs. infalling observer)
In fact you use the coordinate system that works based with your problem. If you use polar coordinates, you just have to realize that you will have problems doing calculations near r=0.
Join the club :-) :-) :-) It bothers a lot of people.Any solution that ends in a singularity does bother me, I'll admit. Not so much that the singularity and it's infinite gravity well is a rather nasty mathematical aberration - though that is an issue. I'm not overly fond of magical numbers like infinity in reality.
Suffice to say that enough people have tried to avoid the problem that if there was a simple way of avoiding the problem, we would have found it by now.
Something else that bothers people. It's called the black hole information paradox. One thing is that the rules of quantum mechanics says that information can't be destroyed. But black holes seem to destroy information.........No, the real problem I'm trying to solve has to do with data. I'm in computer science, and data loss bothers me - and at this time every theory of data representation I am aware of requires surface area to encode it - including black hole theory.
Also there are some very interesting linkages between computer science and black holes. Entropy.
Maybe. That's one of the ideas that resolves the paradox. However, that resolution happens to lead to some disturbing conclusions.As I understand it, the information that falls into a black hole is of (?) the amount that could be encoded upon the event horizon at plank scale for its given surface area. An interesting coincidence to say the least...
The problem is that if information gets encoded into an event horizon going into the black hole, then it will get encoded in all event horizons. Now we know that the universe is accelerating so eventually everything is going to fall through an event horizon. Now if information gets encoded on that event horizon, then the total amount of information in the universe is going to stay constant. If that happens then the universe is destined to repeat itself.
Notice the strings of "if's". The point of the paper is that if you don't want the conclusion, then one of the "if's" is wrong.
The idea is that ***from the point of view of an outside observer*** (and I have to emphasize that), things appear to "freeze" at the event horizon, and so you have some "frozen information".If all that mass is truly being compacted into a singularity at the center, what medium is left to encode this vast amount of data at the event horizon? Is it being 'written' into magnetic fields? Gravitation waves, even at the edge of a black hole, couldn't possibly be granular enough, could they? Data cannot just float in space-time, as far as I know.
At that point you have to ask "what is information?" ***From the point of view of an outside observer*** things appear to freeze when you cross the event horizon, and you can use that to store information. The fact that in fact this is something of an optical illusion doesn't change the fact that information is stored.Thus why I am looking for solutions that retain the black hole's mass at the event horizon. If it falls through, it appears to me that we are left with no-where feasible to record its existence, which is a very serious problem.