On 8/13/2013 5:37 PM, Henry Baker wrote:
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.
That's not quite right. The Gravitational redshift makes the photons coming to us later and later so that it takes indefinitely long for us to see the thing falling thru the event horizon. But for the thing proper time (as it reads on its clock) is quite finite.
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.
Except there are other perspectives - like that of the guy falling into the black hole and we want our theories of physics to apply equally to all points of view.
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's KITP 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 think they meant that's the ideal amount you could get by adiabatically lowering a particle into a BH. There's no mechanism for a particle to just 'release' energy (photons?) as it falls into a BH.
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:
The Higgs field is needed to give *rest mass* to the weakly interacting particles. Photons for example have gravitational potential energy without having rest mass. Nucleons get most of their mass from the kinetic energy of the bound quarks. Brent
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
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3211/6574 - Release Date: 08/13/13