black hole's information

[Pinball1970]

It should be noted that even Hawking said to take this simplistic description with a grain of salt. It's a little more complicated than that in a way that mere words and analogies don't do justice. As always, it comes down to the math.

[EDIT] Yeah. What Pinball said there.

That paper from 1975 is nuts. You can get the PDF on line. Its on PF too.

 

[exchemist]

By sheer happenstance of distance from the EH.
In most cases, both will be captured or neither will be captured.
But a small fraction will pop into existence so close to the EH that - due to their initially diverging trajectories - one will fall in and one will escape.

View attachment 5938

That would imply that equal numbers of particles and antiparticles emanate from the black hole. Is that right?

 

[DaveC426913]

That would imply that equal numbers of particles and antiparticles emanate from the black hole. Is that right?

It might seem to at first glance, but I wouldn't rely on it.
For example, I believe black holes can be electrically charged by an asymmetrical influx of ions (either +ive or -ive particles). that might affect the ratio of which particles fall in. I'm a little out on a limb here though.

 

[James R]

Nobody is talking about a hole in space.

You were. Don't you remember?

I am talking about the gravitational effect of the central singularity, and the possibility that a supermassive black hole creates an energetic worm hole instead of a massive singularity.

This is the first time you've mentioned anything about an "energetic worm hole". You're just making stuff up, aren't you?

A black hole is the name for the entire area affected by the singularity. It is what makes the "hole" in the toroid shape of the entire pattern. Its gravity is what creates the spacetime well. The accretion disc is the gravitational result

I already told you that the "entire pattern" is not toroidal. I told you that twice. Why are you still repeating that error? Do you think I'm wrong? (And, more importantly, can you show I'm wrong?)

Now consider this from a universal perspective and what a toroid universe would look like?

Why don't you explain exactly what you mean by a "toroid universe"? Surely you must have something in mind. What do you think it would look like?

A central black hole singularity and a universal spacetime accretion disc.

The universe is not a black hole.

If not a single object, then perhaps a multiverse where new smaller universes are born constantly.

What does that have to do with toroids?

If new galaxies are born why not new universe?

The processes involved are entirely unrelated.

What nobody knows is if there is what's on the other side of a supermassive universal black hole.

You're not making any sense.

It would account for an alternately expanding and contracting universe.

There's no evidence for any alternately expanding and contracting universes.

This "shockwave" model might also account for David Bohm's Pilot Wave model, which solves the particle duality question.

Don't post your pet theories to unrelated threads. Just stop it.

How many official warnings will you need before you'll understand this simple request?

It would also account for the seemingly endless supply and conservation of energy .

There is no endless supply of energy. Conservation of energy is the complete opposite of an endless supply of energy. Stop just making stuff up.

I may be way off, but it is these questions that present to me as the simplest functional model that also satisfies all the questions.

A bunch of questions is not a model. Stop just saying any old thing, hoping it will make sense to somebody. You're obviously completely out of your depth with this stuff, so why pretend you understand it?

Note that I am not making this up but I am only quoting current hypotheses.

You're barely coherent on this stuff.

I am not thinking about the bits and pieces that must be kept separate during debates on the properties of the universe. I like to weave a mental tapestry that presents a universal landscape.

I doubt that many people care about your fantasies about what an imaginary version of the universe might be like.

If the actual science can be mathematically represented, then any concept will sort itself out as we explore the different perspectives, no?

No. Concepts never sort themselves out. But you're correct that "actual science" can be a useful tool for sorting stuff out. It's far superior to random uniformed imaginings, that's for sure.