| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"*nemo*" |
| Date: |
16 Jul 2004 08:09:45 PM |
| Object: |
No black holes -- PRAISE GAWD!! |
Today, I read that Stephen Hawking is planning to address a major
conference on astrophysics, in order to announce that he has determined
that a part of his theory on the nature of black holes was wrong. To Dr.
Hawking, this means he loses a bet he has had with a fellow
astrophysicist, and he will have to buy the winner a new encyclopedia.
But to the world of creationists, this announcement must mean something
far more important.
In fact, it should mean that we now have incontrovertible proof that
black holes can't possibly exist. And we should shortly expect several
articles on creationist web sites announcing this fact to the world.
Actually, I'm a little surprised that this hasn't happened already.
After all, the very idea that a ball of gas could, by purely natural
processes and without divine intervention collapse and become a
microscopic point - the ultimate example of negative entropy -- should
have been pointed out as impossible long ago. After all, it goes against
the Highly Holy Second Law of Thermodynamics. I guess that must have
been lost in the shuffle. Whatever.
But now that Hawking has announced publicly that his idea about the
nature of black holes is wrong, it is obvious that using creationist
logic, the entire theory must be thrown out. We can feel safe again,
knowing that there never was anything such as a black hole. Man, we sure
lucked out there.
Now, I don't want to hear any idiot sniveling on this! Sure, there may
be some tiny bits of evidence lying around that could be interpreted as
indicating the existence of black holes. But as all good creationists
know, if a scientific theory has the slightest bit wrong about it, that
must mean that it is completely false, and the Bible should take
precedence. And since there's not a single mention of black holes
anywhere between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21, that should settle
the whole question.
I will be sure to write to the Institute of Creation Research, and let
them know that I fully expect them to start their astronomers working on
the problem at once. Surely, there is some other explanation that they
can come up with to cover the information that those idiot atheistic
astronomers have mistaken for evidence of black holes for so long.
Besides, I'm sure that they can bear to pull one or two of them aside
from their work of proving that the whole flippin' universe is
fine-tuned exclusively for our benefit long enough to take this matter
into consideration. Be sure to watch this space for further updates.
And remember! Every time any theory has some tiny part of it that is
discovered to be wrong, you must toss the whole thing out and replace it
either with whatever the Bible says on the subject or with nothing, if
the Bible doesn't mention it. Long live the ICR!!
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
| User: "Dr Dave W" |
|
| Title: Re: No black holes -- PRAISE GAWD!! |
16 Jul 2004 08:27:00 PM |
|
|
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in news:nemo0037-
1F6C06.21094416072004@news06.east.earthlink.net:
Today, I read that Stephen Hawking is planning to address a major
conference on astrophysics, in order to announce that he has determined
that a part of his theory on the nature of black holes was wrong. To Dr.
Hawking, this means he loses a bet he has had with a fellow
astrophysicist, and he will have to buy the winner a new encyclopedia.
But to the world of creationists, this announcement must mean something
far more important.
An article on the subject.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996151
--
Dave W a.a.#1967
.
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: No black holes -- PRAISE GAWD!! |
17 Jul 2004 03:16:54 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:27:00 GMT, Dr Dave W <askme@formyaddy.comINVALID> wrote:
*nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in news:nemo0037-
1F6C06.21094416072004@news06.east.earthlink.net:
Today, I read that Stephen Hawking is planning to address a major
conference on astrophysics, in order to announce that he has determined
that a part of his theory on the nature of black holes was wrong. To Dr.
Hawking, this means he loses a bet he has had with a fellow
astrophysicist, and he will have to buy the winner a new encyclopedia.
But to the world of creationists, this announcement must mean something
far more important.
An article on the subject.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996151
The article states:
"Hawking radiation contains no information about the matter inside the black
hole and once the black hole evaporates, all information is lost.
"But this conflicts with the laws of quantum physics, which say that such
information can never be completely wiped out. "
Can anyone with a better grounding than I have in QM have a go at explaining
this? I've never come across any such thing in QM. In fact, intuitively, given
QM's reliance on inherent randomness (the source of Hawking radiation) I would
have expected completely the opposite.
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: No black holes -- PRAISE GAWD!! |
17 Jul 2004 07:32:03 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Levy Oates poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996151
The article states:
"Hawking radiation contains no information about the matter inside the black
hole and once the black hole evaporates, all information is lost.
"But this conflicts with the laws of quantum physics, which say that such
information can never be completely wiped out. "
Can anyone with a better grounding than I have in QM have a go at explaining
this? I've never come across any such thing in QM.
It is a bit of a stretch to call this a "law" of quantum physics.
If reality is CPT invariant then information cannot be lost. All
observation to date is consistent with the idea of conservation of CPT,
or CPT invariance. Because of this, Hawking radiation presented a
problem for physics since it would mean that the information inside a
black hole can simply vanish when the hole evaporates. Hawking radiation
does not seem to be able to carry information out of the hole.
Stephen Hawking has indicated that he might have a solution that allows
the information in the hole to become available to the "outside". The
details have not yet been made public, but he has provided some hints by
saying that the event horizon of the hole may be only apparent, rather
than real. This would remove the barrier to seeing the information that
is in the hole.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/35153.html
Regards,
Josef
Not to know is bad; not to wish to know is worse.
-- African Proverb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arnoud Hobbel" |
|
| Title: Re: No black holes -- PRAISE GAWD!! |
17 Jul 2004 06:00:07 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:16:54 +0100, Levy Oates wrote:
The article states:
"Hawking radiation contains no information about the matter inside the
black hole and once the black hole evaporates, all information is lost.
"But this conflicts with the laws of quantum physics, which say that
such information can never be completely wiped out. "
Can anyone with a better grounding than I have in QM have a go at
explaining this? I've never come across any such thing in QM. In fact,
intuitively, given QM's reliance on inherent randomness (the source of
Hawking radiation) I would have expected completely the opposite.
It's actually not that hard. QM is indeed a statistical theory, but it's
not completely random (at least, not in the way you see random). Maybe
it's best if I explain with an analogy:
Classic black holes (before hawking): A black hole is a dead end. Matter
goes in and never comes out. This is akin to a machine that eats up all
sorts of balls. The machine might get heavier, but nothing really comes
out the other end.
Hawkingradiating black holes:
Those are akin to that same machine, but now it does something random to
the balls and they roll out the other end at some time or another.
The problem is you would expect that if you let the machine eat only
footballs, eventually the amount of footballs it spits out again would get
bigger and bigger. The same goes for black holes. You would expect if you
feed a black hole a lot of charged particles (or coloured, or top-spinned,
etc.) it will eventually start to reflect this in its radiation, but
hawkingradiation can't do this: it's always truly random: i.e.,
independent of anything.
You see the problem?
Once black holes are allowed to spit anything back into the universe, QM
insists you be able to infer something from the output about the input,
but you can't. There's your paradox.
AH.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: No black holes -- PRAISE GAWD!! |
17 Jul 2004 07:50:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:00:07 GMT, Arnoud Hobbel <alhobbel@hotREMOVEmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:16:54 +0100, Levy Oates wrote:
The article states:
"Hawking radiation contains no information about the matter inside the
black hole and once the black hole evaporates, all information is lost.
"But this conflicts with the laws of quantum physics, which say that
such information can never be completely wiped out. "
Can anyone with a better grounding than I have in QM have a go at
explaining this? I've never come across any such thing in QM. In fact,
intuitively, given QM's reliance on inherent randomness (the source of
Hawking radiation) I would have expected completely the opposite.
It's actually not that hard. QM is indeed a statistical theory, but it's
not completely random (at least, not in the way you see random). Maybe
it's best if I explain with an analogy:
Classic black holes (before hawking): A black hole is a dead end. Matter
goes in and never comes out. This is akin to a machine that eats up all
sorts of balls. The machine might get heavier, but nothing really comes
out the other end.
Hawkingradiating black holes:
Those are akin to that same machine, but now it does something random to
the balls and they roll out the other end at some time or another.
The problem is you would expect that if you let the machine eat only
footballs, eventually the amount of footballs it spits out again would get
bigger and bigger. The same goes for black holes. You would expect if you
feed a black hole a lot of charged particles (or coloured, or top-spinned,
etc.) it will eventually start to reflect this in its radiation, but
hawkingradiation can't do this: it's always truly random: i.e.,
independent of anything.
You see the problem?
Once black holes are allowed to spit anything back into the universe, QM
insists you be able to infer something from the output about the input,
but you can't. There's your paradox.
AH.
Thanks for the explanation, but I really must be a bit slow here. I don't see
any paradox at all, or anything in QM to suggest that information should be
conserved (whatever "information" means in this context).
Hawking radiation arises because of the creation of pairs of virtual particles,
which as you say occur essentially at random. Those with lowest masses, and
therefore longest lifetimes (by Heisenberg) will be more likely to be captured
within the black hole's event horizon. With the result that the small proportion
of virtual particles left outside the horizon are free to escape.
Why would anyone expect the radiation to bear any relation to the matter which
formed the black hole? Transformation from matter to energy and back again
occurs all the times in cosmic rays and in particle accelerators with no real
relationship between the input and the output (subject to the preservation of
the relevant quantum numbers).
Or is that the problem? That the preservation of the quantum numbers seem to be
violated?
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arnoud Hobbel" |
|
| Title: Re: No black holes -- PRAISE GAWD!! |
18 Jul 2004 03:07:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:50:26 +0100, Levy Oates wrote:
Thanks for the explanation, but I really must be a bit slow here. I
don't see any paradox at all, or anything in QM to suggest that
information should be conserved (whatever "information" means in this
context).
From
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/info_loss.html:
In order to understand why the information loss problem is a problem, we
need first to understand what it is. Take a quantum system in a pure
state and throw it into a black hole. Wait for some amount of time until
the hole has evaporated enough to return to its mass previous to throwing
anything in. What we start with is a pure state and a black hole of mass
M. What we end up with is a thermal state and a black hole of mass M. We
have found a process (apparently) which converts a pure state into a
thermal state. But, and here's the kicker, a thermal state is a MIXED
state (described quantum mechanically by a density matrix rather than a
wave function). In transforming between a mixed state and a pure state,
one must throw away information. For instance, in our example we took a
state described by a set of eigenvalues and coefficients, a large set of
numbers, and transformed it into a state described by temperature, one
number. All the other structure of the state was lost in the
transformation.
In technical jargon, the black hole has performed a non-unitary
transformation on the state of system. As you may recall, non-unitary
evolution is not allowed to occur naturally in a quantum theory because it
fails to preserve probability, ie, after non-unitary evolution, the sum of
the probabilities of all possible outcomes of an experiment may be greater
of less than 1.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: No black holes -- PRAISE GAWD!! |
19 Jul 2004 01:34:56 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:07:31 GMT, Arnoud Hobbel <alhobbel@hotREMOVEmail.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 13:50:26 +0100, Levy Oates wrote:
Thanks for the explanation, but I really must be a bit slow here. I
don't see any paradox at all, or anything in QM to suggest that
information should be conserved (whatever "information" means in this
context).
From
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/info_loss.html:
In order to understand why the information loss problem is a problem, we
need first to understand what it is. Take a quantum system in a pure
state and throw it into a black hole. Wait for some amount of time until
the hole has evaporated enough to return to its mass previous to throwing
anything in. What we start with is a pure state and a black hole of mass
M. What we end up with is a thermal state and a black hole of mass M. We
have found a process (apparently) which converts a pure state into a
thermal state. But, and here's the kicker, a thermal state is a MIXED
state (described quantum mechanically by a density matrix rather than a
wave function). In transforming between a mixed state and a pure state,
one must throw away information. For instance, in our example we took a
state described by a set of eigenvalues and coefficients, a large set of
numbers, and transformed it into a state described by temperature, one
number. All the other structure of the state was lost in the
transformation.
In technical jargon, the black hole has performed a non-unitary
transformation on the state of system. As you may recall, non-unitary
evolution is not allowed to occur naturally in a quantum theory because it
fails to preserve probability, ie, after non-unitary evolution, the sum of
the probabilities of all possible outcomes of an experiment may be greater
of less than 1.
OK. I surrender. I don't know what that means.
Thanks anyway (back to the text books...)
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: No black holes -- PRAISE GAWD!! |
17 Jul 2004 12:11:01 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:09:45 GMT the ET form known as
*nemo*<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> sent a radio signal across the
vast expanse of deep space -._.--._.--._.--._.--._.--._.
Today, I read that Stephen Hawking is planning to address a major
conference on astrophysics, in order to announce that he has determined
that a part of his theory on the nature of black holes was wrong. To Dr.
Hawking, this means he loses a bet he has had with a fellow
astrophysicist, and he will have to buy the winner a new encyclopedia.
But to the world of creationists, this announcement must mean something
far more important.
In fact, it should mean that we now have incontrovertible proof that
black holes can't possibly exist. And we should shortly expect several
articles on creationist web sites announcing this fact to the world.
Actually, I'm a little surprised that this hasn't happened already.
After all, the very idea that a ball of gas could, by purely natural
processes and without divine intervention collapse and become a
microscopic point - the ultimate example of negative entropy -- should
have been pointed out as impossible long ago. After all, it goes against
the Highly Holy Second Law of Thermodynamics. I guess that must have
been lost in the shuffle. Whatever.
But now that Hawking has announced publicly that his idea about the
nature of black holes is wrong, it is obvious that using creationist
logic, the entire theory must be thrown out. We can feel safe again,
knowing that there never was anything such as a black hole. Man, we sure
lucked out there.
Now, I don't want to hear any idiot sniveling on this! Sure, there may
be some tiny bits of evidence lying around that could be interpreted as
indicating the existence of black holes. But as all good creationists
know, if a scientific theory has the slightest bit wrong about it, that
must mean that it is completely false, and the Bible should take
precedence. And since there's not a single mention of black holes
anywhere between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21, that should settle
the whole question.
I will be sure to write to the Institute of Creation Research, and let
them know that I fully expect them to start their astronomers working on
the problem at once. Surely, there is some other explanation that they
can come up with to cover the information that those idiot atheistic
astronomers have mistaken for evidence of black holes for so long.
Besides, I'm sure that they can bear to pull one or two of them aside
from their work of proving that the whole flippin' universe is
fine-tuned exclusively for our benefit long enough to take this matter
into consideration. Be sure to watch this space for further updates.
And remember! Every time any theory has some tiny part of it that is
discovered to be wrong, you must toss the whole thing out and replace it
either with whatever the Bible says on the subject or with nothing, if
the Bible doesn't mention it. Long live the ICR!!
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1155746.htm
The reason why fundys have not jumped on this one yet is that 30 - 50
years has not yet passed. That's why dusty moon arguments are still
doing the cretinist rounds.
--
epicurus1*at*optusnet*dot*com*dot*au
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever
conceived." - Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: No black holes -- PRAISE GAWD!! |
17 Jul 2004 03:20:58 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:09:45 GMT, *nemo* <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
it goes against
the Highly Holy Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The Holy Second Law is god's most sacred law. In fact, the original tablets that
god gave to moses (and which he so carelessly smashed to bits) contained as the
zeroth commandment:
"Thou shalt not contravene the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
There is no known physical process which contradicts the Second Law...except for
divine miracles - they're allowed. God can pop into his big bag of anti-entropy
and shovel out a big dollop of it whenever he wants. This is why Creationism is
so much more scientific than evolution.
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
