I believe this is exactly the contradiction that Hawking and Susskind et. al. have been wrestling with for decades. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Eugene Salamin <gene_salamin@yahoo.com>wrote:
Things can fall into a black hole; they penetrate the event horizon and then reach the central singularity in a finite proper time, about a millisecond for a solar mass black hole. Signals emitted after the object enters the event horizon cannot exit. The object emits, in its own rest frame, a finite number of photons per unit time. The external observer detects only finitely many photons, although no upper bound can placed on the arrival time of the last photon. After that, all contact is lost. I'm not sure what meaning can be attached to the statement "So all of the _information_ that 'fell into' the black hole still resides in our universe, except that from our perspective it is now painted on the _surface_ of the black hole." This is not something that can be experimentally verified. The stuff isn't just sitting there on the event horizon.
An object falling into a black hole loses energy only if it collides with other objects on its way in, as in an accretion disk. In the absence of such dissipation, the object carries all its energy inside. The total energy, rest + kinetic, of the object at infinity, and then divided by c^2, is the mass increase of the black hole. Subtract from that total energy, any energy radiated away to infinity by dissipation.
-- Gene
________________________________ From: Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [math-fun] "firewall paradox" about black holes
From _our_ perspective of the outside world, things that 'fall into' the black hole _never get there_, because time just gets slower & slower (GR time dilation) until at the horizon itself time stops.
So all of the _information_ that 'fell into' the black hole still resides in our universe, except that from our perspective it is now painted on the _surface_ of the black hole.
This is one way to see Bekenstein's argument that the information 'content' of a black hole is proportional to its surface area.
--- BTW, I was watching a lecture at UCSB'sKITP where the claim was made that particles that 'fall into' a black hole 'release' an amount of energy equal to their gravitational potential energy, which can be ~ 50% of their _rest mass_.
I haven't done the calculations, but if we can attribute the 'rest mass' of a particle to its _potential energy_ as a result of being pulled out of a black hole, who needs Higgs Bosons to give us rest mass ?
So we get all of our mass from the potential energy from being separated from every other mass in the universe? Mach was right, after all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle
At 04:38 PM 8/13/2013, Warren D Smith wrote:
in NY Times today, graphic is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/08/13/science/0813-sci-blackhole.htm...
does my (already discussed) quantum decoherence picture already resolve
this paradox?
Needs thought...
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun