Tom,
"why is the edit function available only occasionally?"
Try running the cursor across the bold 'Add/Edit' line without clicking when you go to 'submit new post', it seems to place the 'edit' tab at the top right corner of the posting. jrc
Tom,
"why is the edit function available only occasionally?"
Try running the cursor across the bold 'Add/Edit' line without clicking when you go to 'submit new post', it seems to place the 'edit' tab at the top right corner of the posting. jrc
Hawking's new conclusion: "The chaotic collapsed object will radiate deterministically but chaotically. It will be like weather forecasting on Earth. That is unitary, but chaotic, so there is effective information loss. One can't predict the weather more than a few days in advance."
Exactly the points I have been making for years: (1) deterministic laws do not NECESSARILY result in deterministic behaviors, and (2) Information, correctly understood, is "chaotic", by definition. If the data has any order (non-chaos), then it is not high in information in the first place. Order = low information content.
See my comments on the PBS-NOVA website: Do Black Holes Destroy Information
The way in which entities behave, in a high-information-content environment, is almost entirely "determined" by the initial conditions, not the "laws" of physics. "Pure" information is like an index into a look-up-table. The is no NECESSARY relationship (law) relating the index into the table, to the contents of the table (that "determines"s how the entity is to behave in response to the index).
Rob McEachern
Rob, I agree with you that Hawking got it right. And I think I agree with your point (2), if my claim, time = information is true.
Tom
Hawking's paper made news in HuffPo
Tom,
"Time = Information"? I thought Time = Money.
But on a more serious note, if I substitute your above equivalence into your statement that:
"3.8 If, as we assert, time is identical to information-and if information flow is as we have conjectured, from information-rich spaces to information-poor spaces..."
Then I obtain:
"3.8 If, as we assert, time is identical to information-and if time flow is as we have conjectured, from time-rich spaces to time-poor spaces..."
What do you mean by "time-rich" and "time-poor"?
Rob McEachern
Hi Rob,
Under the assumption that there are more (many more) randomly-oriented time intervals of length 1 than ordered histories of length 1 oriented from an arbitrary initial condition -- I find that local rigid transformations of spacetime histories (path integrals) are self-similar to nonlinear global transformations of spacetime intervals.
So if one chooses to substitute "time-rich" and "time-poor" for information rich and information poor -- one finds that the information in thermal energy is the only form of information that can be physically real. Then:
Because the Ricci flow (Richard Hamilton) is identical to heat flow and time dependent, and the Ricci evolution equation preserves the curvature operator for n dimensions, we find that from my definition of "time":
Time: n-dimension infinitely orientable metric on random self-avoiding walk
applied to physical information, it follows that rigid rotations in space depend on nonlinear transformations in time -- such that local random changes in angular momentum at every spacetime scale and orientation of the plane, are nonlinear. The wave function therefore does not collapse and spacetime is not quantized; Joy Christian's quantum measurement framework is exactly as general, natural and manifestly local as he claims. The only non-arbitrary choice of initial condition on the 3-manifold is the simple pole at infinity, compactifying R^3 and showing by existence that Bell's choice of topology was in error.
I am in the editing/polishing stage of a paper that more formally explains all this in detail with supporting mathematics.
Best,
Tom
Some people do not appreciate Hawking changing his mind. Kind of sad.
January 27, 2014
Stephen Hawking's Blunder on Black Holes Shows Danger of Listening to Scientists, Says Bachmann
Posted by Andy Borowitz
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/01/stephen-hawkings-blunder-on-black-holes-shows-danger-of-listening-to-scientists-says-bachmann.html
Wow. This reaction is *serious* and in some ways very understandable:
"Actually, Dr. Hawking, our biggest blunder as a society was ever listening to people like you," said Rep. Bachmann. "If black holes don't exist, then other things you scientists have been trying to foist on us probably don't either, like climate change and evolution."
Rep. Bachmann added that all the students who were forced to learn about black holes in college should now sue Dr. Hawking for a full refund. "Fortunately for me, I did not take any science classes in college," she said.
It only goes to show how important it is for the science community to really have a light bulb moment about quantum mechanics being at odds with general relativity. For me the answer is easy. It's general relativity which is flat wrong. Newton's idea of gravity working equally in all directions without a mechanism being required is flat wrong. Einstein never changed this ludicrous premise. A particle model of a graviton, a spinning Archimedes screw, is the ONLY model to bridge the gap between a theory of gravity and quantum mechanics. It's easy AND common sense! Gravity then becomes directional, like the other forces. Baryonic gravity of everyday matter then becomes an average radiation of gravitons equally in all directions, which is why his simple equation is so effective.
Science must be saved from scientists themselves so a very understandable reaction from politicians. This is to be expected when scientific criticism is stifled and opposing views are systematically shut out without bothering to discredit them on merit. See this effort aimed at avoiding this kind of future embarrassment of science by politicians. How should humanity steer the future? Look up to politicians, not scientists the way things are going.
Akinbo
Akinbo,
Thank you so much for the link to 95 Years of Criticism of the Special Theory of Relativity (1908-2003).
Here's a taster of what the research project have to say:
[quote]The public in Germany has been cheated since 1922 and is cheated by the influential scientific community until today. Academic physics exert strong pressure on newspapers, journals, publishers and congresses not to accept any criticism of special relativity for publishing. Critical papers are suppressed, critical persons are excluded from any participation in the scientific dialogue.[end quote]
Here is the interesting article that may shed a light on the information paradox.
Suppose you store information of a book in the z-directional spin states of stream of electrons. Then later, in order to extract the information, but by mistake, you measure their spin states in x-direction. So you mess up the information stored in the stream of electrons. But conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics does not insist this measurement destroys the information, because the wave function of an isolated system evolves smoothly by unitary process of Schrodinger equation. In other words, the information is not destroyed becasue the wave function of an isolated system never collapse.
This article shows that the wave function of an isolated system should be able to collapse without external observer. It means that, if the collapse of wave function is fundamental, the quantum information of an isolated system can be destroyed by ordinary quantum process.Attachment #1: isolawave.pdf
They used Quantum field theory explains how all known particles interact with the fundamental forces (except gravity, that is). The information could go to the exception, into a gravity field. Perhaps, we need to reconsider what gravity is or, rather, how it functions. This is more than combining QM and GR. This is forming a completely new model that can correspond to both QM and GR with appropriate, but different, approximations. STOE correspondence to general relativity and quantum mechanics develop this idea a little. There is a long way to go.
Hodge
It gets a little confusing commenting on an article by one person, Anil Ananthaswamy, about what another person, Steve Giddings, says about gravity force and black holes and what Giddings says about what even other people say.
Giddings wrote even more on Edge.org,
"Naive modifications of locality--as often proposed by physicists "on the fringe," generically lead to disastrous collapse of the entire framework of quantum field theory, which not only has been experimentally tested to a very high degree of accuracy, but underlies our entire physical picture of the world. If such modification must be made, it must be subtle indeed."
I would certainly agree with Giddings assessment that science is now very confused about gravity and charge forces and knows that something is very wrong, but does not yet know even exactly what is wrong. My favorite take on this is that an object under gravity force has just a single future while the same object under quantum force has many possible futures. This absurdity is particularly revealing when an experiment where the two forces end up being of identical magnitudes for the same object.
The key to a quantum gravity force is to describe objects both as matter waves with more than one possible future and as particles with a single future. The particle-wave duality of quantum mechanics is very familiar to practitioners, but obscure and difficult to communicate to civilians. It seems very likely that QM will be the way forward for gravity as well.
Discrete matter exists as both ballistic particles with particular locations and as matter waves with many phases, which means many possible locations or paths. Unlike a Cartesian particle, a relational matter wave can persist in more than one phase as a coherent state related to its source for an arbitrary time.
This means that discrete matter literally exists as a matter wave simultaneously in more than one phase or possible location or path. Eventually a matter wave somehow dephases into the single phase of a ballistic particle and it is only then that the matter wave is a particle at a single location or on a single path (still subject to uncertainty). So only when a matter wave dephases from the universe into the single phase of a ballistic particle does that matter become ballistic and therefore subject to our familiar Cartesian causality. Before dephasing into a single phase, a matter wave is subject to the relational quantum causality where a number of futures or phases are possible.
Thus, the possibilities for an object from an action evolve from the many possible futures of a relational matter wave into the single Cartesian future of a ballistic object subject to uncertainty. However, even though many phases or paths are possible and are correlated, only one phase results from an action. Dephasing into one place or path does not cause the other object possibilities to disappear just as the not-objects at the other places or paths do not cause the object to appear where it does appear. The dephasing among places or paths into a single place or path is simply subject to the quantum probabilities.
Now it will be fun to see what matter waves tell us about black holes...
Retiring Einstein's Spacetime
https://edge.org/response-detail/26744
Steve Giddings, Theoretical Physicist; Professor, Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara: "For the 2014 Edge Question, I wrote that apparently our fundamental concept of spacetime is ready for retirement, and it needs to be replaced by a more basic quantum structure. There are multiple reasons for this."
https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... (...) The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
Can special relativity's spacetime be retired without retiring at least one of Einstein's 1905 postulates? Einsteinians?
Pentcho Valev
"Can special relativity's spacetime be retired without retiring at least one of Einstein's 1905 postulates? Einsteinians?"
First of all, it's boring and misguided to hear you repeat, "the speed of light postulate is false," because there is no such thing as a false postulate.
Second, while general relativity does substitute one of the postulates (5th) of Euclidean geometry -- with one from two choices of non-Euclidean geometry -- there is no inconsistency with special relativity.
Third, special relativity is mathematically complete, "contained entirely within its postulates." There's no reason to doubt this -- the law of least action is sufficient to the case.
Now do some real work:
Drop the postulate and explain the theory of optics without it.
'nuff said.
Hi Tom and happy new year...
Yes, by definition "there is no such thing as a false postulate". From various sources, we can quote and say: A postulate is an assumption. A postulate or axiom is laid down as self-evident or taken for granted. It is a proposition or prerequisite assumed without proof. So you are correct in your statement.
Where there is problem is where such postulate leads to absurdity. To quote one:
Which of two clocks in uniform relative motion does the special theory require to work more slowly? Do you have an answer to this?
As Dingle put it, "failing an answer the theory clearly becomes untenable, for, as Professor J. L. Synge has said after long consideration, either the theory or the conception that a regularly running clock cannot work both faster and slower than another must be abandoned". This is pretty obvious.
Regards,
Akinbo
*I doubt though that this is the best forum topic under which the matter can be discussed in detail.
Hello Akinbo,
and me I have not a happy new year :)
happy new year Akinbo and be the force with you
"there is no such thing as a false postulate"
I suspect only Tom and Akinbo believe in this. For the rest of the world the potential falsehood of any physical postulate is something obvious:
http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-Science/dp/0618551050
Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."
Pentcho Valev
Akinbo,
The times are relative .
There will be no more discourse with you, Pentcho, until you explain the theory of optics without the speed of light postulate.
Smolin is wrong and he knows it. Two postulates are necessary because relative motion is always referred to -- i.e., relative to -- absolute motion.
There is no such thing as a "false postulate". Every mathematician in the world knows this.