
The man who proved Stephen Hawking wrong - ColinWright
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10654762/The-man-who-proved-Stephen-Hawking-wrong.html
======
boona
Stephen Hawking wasn't "wrong", it was a theory. Theories aren't nessacarily
what's actually going on, it's just a way of viewing a problem in a way that
helps you predict outcomes. People who say things like "this theory is wrong"
are the same typ of people who say "scientists say" or "science says".
Susskind simply came up with a theory that is less wrong, and that will spark
new conversations and one day someone will come up with a theory that's less
wrong than his.

------
tlogan
As far as I know, Juan Maldacena's paper is what what finally convicted
Stephen Hawking that he was wrong. Then "black hole complementarity" argument
become good enough to explain back hole paradox. Then it came Joe Polchinski
with his AMPS paper which proved that "complimentary black hole" is wrong.

Now we are in square one - and it could be Hawking is right.

(I have only basic physic knowledge so I would appreciate if somebody with
more education can describe this).

~~~
dewiz
What do you mean we are in square one ? Could you point to some article ? As
much as I'm not a physicist I like reading about this :-). Thanks

------
guard-of-terra
How can matter fall into a black hole? Time will stop upon getting closer to
the horizon so matter will virtually just sit there. After some time black
hole will look more like a bubble, won't it?

I remember asking on stack exchange and I've got an answer that no, it doesn't
actually fall in.

~~~
skj
Time from that matter's perspective. From the outside observer's perspective,
it zips right in.

Same way that if you travel near the speed of light your perception of time
slows until you are no longer traveling that fast. But to an outside observer
you are zipping right along.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Nope, the other way around. From matter's perspective, its time ticks as ever.
But for outside observer, it just halted there.

~~~
sebular
Nope, skj had it right and you've got it backwards. Otherwise we wouldn't
perceive black holes to be black holes...

If we observed matter falling into a black hole to be "halting there", well,
we'd see it halted there on the spherical surface of the event horizon instead
of what we actually see, which is that matter and light get completely sucked
in.

~~~
guard-of-terra
"instead of what we actually see, which is that matter and light get
completely sucked in"

We actually never see that

"Due to this effect, known as gravitational time dilation, an object falling
into a black hole appears to slow down as it approaches the event horizon,
taking an infinite time to reach it. At the same time, all processes on this
object slow down, for a fixed outside observer, causing emitted light to
appear redder and dimmer, an effect known as gravitational redshift.
Eventually, at a point just before it reaches the event horizon, the falling
object becomes so dim that it can no longer be seen."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole)

~~~
skj
This is completely consistent with my statement :)

Our time perception of the object remains the same, but the processes
experienced by the object itself are much slower, relative to how we perceive
them.

Specifically, if the object falling in is emitting blue light, and let's say
that the frequency of blue light is one per second for the sake of doing some
arithmetic, then that object keeps emitting 1/second and looks blue to itself.
But in our frame of reference, those 1/second actually become .1/second (its
time is moving slower then our time), and appears red.

------
evincarofautumn
Could someone explain to me why matter falling into a black hole might imply
that information would be annihilated?

It seems to me that the information is still present, though no longer
accessible from outside the black hole. That doesn’t seem at odds with the
preservation of information in any way.

~~~
gizmo686
I am not a physicist.

The problem comes from Hawking radiation. Over time, the matter/energy
absorbed by black holes does get released through Hawking radiation. However,
this emission contains no information about the matter that originally went
into the black hole (it is entirely dependent on the mass, angular momentum,
and charge of the black hole).

------
ExpiredLink
> _Hawking made the stunning claim that material which falls into a black hole
> disappears forever. If correct, it would mean that the fundamental laws of
> the universe would have to be rewritten._

The 'hard' science physics seems to be one of the weakest sciences at all.

------
bluefin
Any non-paywalled source?

~~~
ikeboy
[https://archive.today/pcCwW](https://archive.today/pcCwW)

