Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Here's why SH stopped working on black hole information loss

#1
C C Offline
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/04...-hole.html

EXCERPT (Sabine Hossenfelder): . . . And that’s the problem with the black hole information loss paradox. The temperature of the black holes that we can observe today is way too small to measure the Hawking radiation. Remember that the larger the black hole, the smaller its temperature. The temperature of astrophysical black holes is below the temperature of the CMB. And even if that wasn’t the case, what do you want to do? Sit around 100 billion years to catch all the radiation and see if you can figure out what fell into the black hole? It’s not going to happen.

What’s going to happen with this new solution? Most likely, someone’s going to find a problem with it, and everyone will continue working on their own solution. Indeed, there’s a good chance that by the time this video appears this has already happened. For me, the real paradox is why they keep doing it. I guess they do it because they have been told so often this is a big problem that they believe if they solve it they’ll be considered geniuses. But of course their colleagues will never agree that they solved the problem to begin with. So by all chances, half a year from now you’ll see another headline claiming that the problem has been solved.

And that’s why I stopped working on the black hole information loss paradox. Not because it’s unsolvable. But because you can’t solve this problem with mathematics alone, and experiments are not possible, not now and probably not in the next 10000 years.

Why am I telling you this? I am not talking about this because I want to change the mind of my colleagues in physics. They have grown up thinking this is an important research question and I don’t think they’ll change their mind. But I want you to know that you can safely ignore headlines about black hole information loss. You’re not missing anything if you don’t read those articles. Because no one can tell which solution is correct in the sense that it actually describes nature, and physicists will not agree on one anyway. Because if they did, they’d have to stop writing papers about it... (MORE - missing details)

https://youtu.be/DHR-ggwafO8

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/DHR-ggwafO8
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Research “Singularities don’t exist,” claims black hole pioneer Roy Kerr C C 0 86 Dec 7, 2023 12:34 AM
Last Post: C C
  Here’s why pipe organs seem to violate a rule of sound C C 1 75 May 21, 2022 10:27 AM
Last Post: Kornee
  Information of visible universe measured + How GR warps time across a millimeter C C 0 86 Oct 19, 2021 05:32 PM
Last Post: C C
  Phy: Cosmos has been expanding eternally + Throwing an ‘axion bomb’ into a black hole C C 0 86 Jun 25, 2021 11:18 PM
Last Post: C C
  Crisis of quantum gravity + Has the black hole information paradox evaporated? C C 0 133 Mar 24, 2021 05:32 PM
Last Post: C C
  How does a multiverse get its mass/energy? + Information without particle exchange C C 0 187 Dec 12, 2020 09:48 AM
Last Post: C C
  Defining information in physics + How Gödel's incompleteness theorems work C C 0 145 Jul 18, 2020 05:19 PM
Last Post: C C
  Mathematical case for why there is no black hole singularity C C 1 432 Dec 22, 2018 11:18 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Physics makes aging inevitable, not biology + Schrodinger's cat in a black hole C C 0 515 May 14, 2016 05:32 AM
Last Post: C C
  Quantum surrealism + 6 things YPDK about grav waves + 5D black hole could 'break' GR C C 1 741 Feb 23, 2016 01:43 AM
Last Post: Magical Realist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)