Dear sir,

According to hawking, a black hole's horizon can warp even time. I think, yes, I agree that black holes are CAPABLE of destroying information if not filtered properly(particle by particle). The bigger the black hole is, the more energy and gravational pull it has. Now this energy makes it radiate and it's one of the reasons the hole breaks matter into particles. This energy vibrating is hawking radiation and I believe that bigger black holes must have a stronger pull resulting in objects that are nearer trying to get in. When this happens, the particles that are near the rim may get dispelled into space. And it's not necessary that what goes into the black hole sticks together.

Just the understanding of a student based on hawking's secret key to the universe.

Hope it helps,

B.P.

Hawking didn’t propose an argument, but drew the conclusion, that information is destroyed by black holes, that have a space-like singularity, since that’s what such z singularity means.

The information paradox means precisely that, that information is, apparently, destroyed.

Hawking radiation doesn’t resolve the paradox, because it’s thermal. A pure quantum state can’t evolve to a thermal state, in a way consistent with unitarity.

Dear Stam Nicolis

Thank you for your message.

There are a few things that I take issue with in your statement. First, you say that Hawking didn't propose an argument, but drew a conclusion. I would argue that Hawking did in fact propose an argument, based on the idea of space-like singularities. Second, you say that the information paradox means that information is apparently destroyed. I would argue that the information paradox means that information is seemingly lost, but may actually still exist in some form. Finally, you say that Hawking radiation doesn't resolve the paradox because it is thermal. I would argue that Hawking radiation does in fact resolve the paradox, because it shows that information can be preserved in a black hole.

PM

It' possible to waste a lot of time using different words for the same things. What matters is the meaning, not the words.

If space-like singularities aren’t resolved, information is destroyed, simply because spacetime is then geodesically incomplete. Hawking and Penrose had proven the singularity theorem in 1970, which implies that space-like singularities are, generically, inevitable in classical gravity. How these are resolved requires a theory of quantum gravity, that's not yet known.

While Hawking radiation is a quantum effect, nonetheless, its existence-which isn’t fully established-is consistent with the statement that it can’t provide the degrees of freedom that resolve the singularity and the information paradox, because unitary evolution of a pure state can’t lead to a thermal state. That's the information paradox: If one applies the rules defining unitary evolution of a quantum state of matter-which does make sense, since matter does have known quantum properties-in the spacetime of a black hole-which is defined as a classical background, a solution of the vacuum Einstein equations-then, if one neglects Hawking radiation, one finds that the evolution isn't unitary, since matter can hit the singularity in finite proper time; and, if one includes Hawking radiation, one finds that its effects don't resolve the singularity, either, since a pure state of matter would evolve into a thermal state, which is inconsistent with unitary evolution.

Dear Stam Nicolis

I agree that it's possible to waste a lot of time using different words for the same thing. However, I think that in this case, the different words used for the same concept can help to clarify the meaning. Otherwise, there can be a lot of confusion. As for the space-like singularities, I'm not sure how they would be resolved. I guess we'll just have to wait for a theory of quantum gravity to be developed.

PM

In classical gravity, singularities are hidden behind horizons, which means that there exist observers (the ``external'' observers) that can have unitary evolution, since they'll never ``hit'' them.

There do exist observers that will hit them, of course, but, as long as there can exist ``external'' observers, they can have unitary evolution and there's no paradox for them. Though, for them other issues arise.

What Hawking radiation implies, however, is that the singularity doesn't remain hidden from ``external'' observers-the distinction doesn't exist, when-known-quantum effects become relevant. That's why Hawking radiation doesn't resolve either the singularity, or the information paradox-indeed its existence makes the paradox inevitable.

However its existence has been established under assumptions, that aren't valid when the black hole becomes ``too small'', when the rate becomes ``too fast''. What takes over then isn't known yet.

Black holes do release all their matter back into the universe at the center of spiral galaxies. This accounts for many radiation effects unique to the center of spiral galaxies.

Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small, and the four forces (GUT) by extending Newton's model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344442808_Scalar_Theory_of_Everything_STOE_unites_the_big_the_small_and_the_four_forces_GUT_by_extending_Newton's_model

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=2414

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlJGdTvuTU

There are other models of black holes too. Like the model that the black hole is comparable with an enormous “rest mass carrying particle”. The consequence is that the difference of the volume around the black hole (vacuum space) and the volume inside the boundary of the black hole is the lack of a magnetic field because all the scalars of the Higgs field are decreased scalars. And... the black hole has a spin of its own, in line with the observations.

The force of gravity “stops” at the boundary of the black hole because there exists no mediating vector field inside the black hole. Anyway, the black hole as an enormous “rest mass carrying particle” has not a fixed size. But that doesn’t mean that the black hole “evaporates” without a steady supply of energy because our universe is an evolving universe. The evolution during all those 13,8 billion years only shows the concentration of energy everywhere in the universe.

The problem with the present model is that there are indications that the enormous black holes in the centre of the nearby galaxies originate from the early universe. Thus these black holes are not the result of the collapse of a heavy star by the force of gravitation, but these black holes were created by the electromagnetic field (local concentrations of energy). The observations show that in the early universe dark matter was “everywhere around” and during the evolution of the universe it is partly transformed into matter.

The image above – https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.05976.pdf – shows the polarization of the CMB radiation. The polarization of the emission of electromagnetic waves by the created Hydrogen atoms everywhere in the universe – termed “Hydrogen condensate” in the Standard Cosmological model – shows all the characteristics of the influence of gravitation. But single Hydrogen atoms – or H2 molecules – cannot create such an enormous gravitational fields.

The only reasonable solution is that the surplus of energy in the early universe created black holes and Hydrogen atoms "together". Because black holes don’t emit electromagnetic radiation but are the center of an enormous gravitational field. In line with the characteristic black body radiation of the CMBR. Moreover, it explains why the first faint galaxies had already “full grown” black holes in its centre. An observation that is not in line with the ideas about the creation and existence of black holes as gravitational singularities.

With kind regards, Sydney

As Einstein correctly pointed out in a 1939 paper, black holes cannot form in a universe of finite age because gravitational time dilation reliably prevents the formation of an event horizon during gravitational collapse. His conclusion was respected until, some years after his death, the academic community decided that anything goes in physics. The trouble was, the pesky physics of the universe remained unchanged - and the academic community totally lost all sense of humility.

It might help you (Deus Vult).

A lot remains to learn