>nothing moves faster than light >black holes trap light

Imagine a particle is on the very barrier of the horizon of a black hole, so that the uncertainty of its position says its neither in nor out. Think about what must happen to conserve quantum information. (left as exercise to reader lel)

File: b26cf3c9dec459860530837e9edba4c8.jpg (87KB, 500x359px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 500x359px

why is THIS allowed?!?1

quantum tunneling lets information from beyond the event horizon occasionally jump out.

>>9058862
>e a particle is on the very barrier of the horizon of a black hole,

but isn't the consensus for quantum mechanics that you can't claim that as the position wave function would have to be compressed which fourier transform the velocity function to expand in width?

>>9058862
2 virtual particles appear separated by the event horizon. Since 1 gets pulled and the other doesn't - the annihilation doesn't happen and 1 of them flies away.
Since energy cannot appear from nowhere, the particle draws his energy from the black hole.

Erm... Quantum tunneling?

>>9058866
>>9059236
How does that not violate the speed of causality/ the speed of light?

>>>9057432

>>9059246
isn't speed of light already btfo by spooky quantum action at a distance?
>>9058856
Hawking radiation isn't real anyway, it's an unverified prediction from approximations about objects that we don't understand.

>>9059246
yeah if quantum physics are in the picture it's best to just disregard the speed of light to begin with

>>9058856
quantum mechanics govern the process of hawking radiation emission. General relativity governs the space-time curvature that traps light. The two do not play well together and represent two correct pieces of a larger picture.

Considering a black hole is quite literally a puncture in space time, it is fair to say that it may also being a localized rupture in the causal horizon itself (yes, literally a break in causality). But we dong understand black holes well enough to say for sure.

>>9059454
>literally a puncture in space time
>rupture in the causal horizon itself

looks like you're hoping for wormholes. Thing is, there is no evidence they exist. space-time isn't "punctured" by black holes, its just warped to the extreme, so far as we know, and there is no reason to believe its anything but extremely warped.

however, you are correct in that rainbow unicorns, leprechauns, space aliens, alternate universes, Zeus/Jesus, and wormholes might be lurking behind event horizons, its not possible to know at this time.

>>9059246
>>9058866
no information is passed when quantum tunneling. Seriously, try it in your head.

It's the same mistake people make when thinking about quantum teleportation, no information is really transmitted.

>>9059492
It just moves instantaneously. then right?

>>9058865

>what is a supertask?

the same reason motion is possible regardless of infinite sums

>>9059517
I'll give you a hint: If you had someone sit behind the horizon and intentionally split virtual particles at the event horizon, would you be able to make a communication device out of it?

The answer is the same as for quantum teleportation. Yes, both particles collapse to the same state in an instant, but you cannot predict WHICH state they collapse to, so essentially you made a glorified synchronized watch.

The only way you can transmit information (not in a physics sense) through quantum teleportation is by pre-determined actions based on the state, something like state A you do action X, state B you do action Y. But this is no different than flipping two coins and the result being synchronized.

>>9059525
>The answer is the same as for quantum teleportation. Yes, both particles collapse to the same state in an instant, but you cannot predict WHICH state they collapse to, so essentially you made a glorified synchronized watch.

But why does it matter?

You could just use a form of morse to transmit information when the state collapses with 1 and 0s.
It wouldn't be simple but you could.

>>9059517

the entangled particles state can be inferred instantly but no information is transferred

>>9059531
You cannot predict if it will collapse to 1 or 0 and have no faster than light way of communicating this result to the other party.

You'll print a random string of 1's and 0's that is completely meaningless.

>>9059484
Actually the einstein rosen bridge has a theoretical mathematical proof as it completes the penrose diagram

>>9059544
>its possible they might exist, there is nothing that proves they don't.

same goes for rainbow unicorns, leprechauns, space aliens, alternate universes and Zeus/Jesus existing behind event horizons.

>>9059569
There is a bit more to it than that. Nothing about black holes has any physical proof, it's all theoretical. This does not equate to fairy tale ideas about unicorns and shit.

>>9059531

watch pbsspacetime on youtube. They did a two part challenge answering that exact question

>>9059523
Except the distance is diverging.

File: quasars_fuck_those_things.jpg (117KB, 894x894px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 894x894px

>>9058856
Because Hawking radiation is the particle that is on our side if the Event Horizon - its partner fell in, thus the pair fails to annihilate, or it wouldn't be there to begin with. Radiation and light can still escape until they cross the Event Horizon.

Nevermind these things putting out even more energy than the galaxies they are inside of.

>>9059584
>>9059569
There's plenty of observable phenomenon where black holes are the only possible explanation, even if you can't observe a singularity directly there's clearly a fuckload of mass in one place, and thus far, all the other crazy predictions of relativity have panned out.

>>9059440
>Hawking radiation isn't real anyway, it's an unverified prediction from approximations about objects that we don't understand.
A bit theoretical and not entirely understood, maybe, but it does explain why black holes aren't popping up in our atmosphere every time a cosmic ray hits us, and we better hope it's a thing, or the tinfoils raising issues about CERN may have been onto something - not that we would know for another sixty years or so.

Also, weeeeeeee:
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1500948139918.webm

>>9058865
Because mass warps spacetime
There becomes a point that time stands still

>inb4 no it's just really slow
What about being less than planck time for the entire lifetime of the universe?
>>9059440
>>9058856
It's possible through m theory

Can anyone enlighten me on the reasoning behind microscopic blackholes?

>>9059569
Dismissing something due to "absurdity" alone is very closed minded.

>>9060931
Hold up.
>for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
Is hawking radiation how this applies to backholes

>>9058856
We don't know enough about the nature of space and location, and change of location (ie motion). What is it to exist at a point in space? What allows something to exist in a certain place, yet disallow its existence in others (certain macro "states" are disallowed)? What is it to change location, why does change even occur?

I do think everything is likely quantized at its most fundamental layers. There is a speed of light because speed is simply localized distortion of time, ie, rate of change. If everything is simply overlayed underlying fields, and their contents finite in precision and quantized, there is possibly a maximum amplitude.

Don't know. I've always tried to work out in my mind how subdivision can be "infinite", but only such that the most micro observed at a given scale is a very zoomed out view of the most macro, with something to lock you to a given part of the scale based on the machinery you're made of.

Or something. I wonder also about orderly matrices arising in black holes that would give rise to the logic seen in a given universe.

>>9058866
Black holes can't destroy information, so the hawking radiation must contain info about the particles that went in. Tunneling resolves this paradox.

>>9058856
>nothing moves faster than light
>neutrino
Idk who told you nothing can be ftl

>>9060931
>these things putting out even more energy
[citation needed]

As usual, you are confusing HR with the BH accretion disc.

>>9061256
nice meme

>>9059230
>2 virtual particles appear
This. Can you(or anyone) explain why they form? I mean, is there a constant amount of this going on everywhere or is it something the event horizon itself can cause?

>>9061470
Not him, but if you're having trouble with relativity due to it buggering common sense with time flowing at different rates for different observers, you really don't want to get into virtual particles and the idea that empty space isn't empty and the Catholics were right all along, both of which are key factors in all of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle#Vacuums
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

>>9061627
From the animation in the video and the references you put up, what i understood is the following:
The vacuum around the event horizon contains harmonic oscillating quantum fields, that manifest as the red to blue and empty spots in the video, where they would be constructively or destructively interfering, but at the very boundary of the horizon, there would be a virtual material that is "perfectly conductor"(the BH itself conducts the particle away without restraints) and another one that would be as conductive as the vacuum itself, and so there would be a gradient of potential for the flow of these virtual particles to the inside of the BH.
This would push one of the particles to the inside of the BH when the pair is created. Up to this point I think I got it right.
Now comes the part I'm missing: wouldn't there be a statistical chance of whatever% that the BH absorbs either the "negative" or "positive" particles created by the virtual fluctuations, as gravity would affect both equally? If that were the case, and there was no bias towards absorbing the "negative" part, the system would balance and no radiation would be put out. If there is a bias, what is causing it?

>>9061470
>Can you(or anyone) explain why they form?

No. They are observed to do so, but there's no obvious reason why this is the case.

>>9062336
If what we see as particles are interactions between fields that always have non-zero oscillatory energy and can interfere with each other, that would explain why virtual pairs can form, they would just be the manifestation of constructive interference, right?

>>9062353

Particles ARE fields. It still doesn't explain WHY virtual particles form, merely HOW they do so.

>>9058865
This isn't true, an ovserver WILL pass the event horizon effortlessly in their own reference frame. It is the light of their entry that gets redshifted to infinity.

File: 1499608563430.jpg (144KB, 572x303px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 572x303px

>>9062356
Got any non-wikipedia sources on this so i can expand my tiny as fuck brainmass around this topic? Math heavy if possible, i am tired of qualitative shit that always says: "here we omitted the tedious proofs"

>>9061068
There is no point where time stands still, brainlet. Any given observer only witesses time dilation when he compares his clock to another.

>>9059540
How about if you use the time between wavefunction collapse as the code? If it's within some time parameter it's 0, if it's outside it's 1. Wouldn't that allow for FTL communication?

>>9059230
No, that isn't what happens. That's a pop-sci explanation for brainlets; Hawking's actual paper doesn't use that reasoning at all (though he does use the pop-sci version in A Brief History of Time).
After all, virtual particles are just mathematical tools for calculating probabilities in quantum field theory: how could an integral "fall" into anything?
>>9062325
>the event horizon contains harmonic oscillating quantum fields
Quantum fields don't oscillate - they're observables so they are represented as operators, like the momentum operator in quantum mechanics.
>Now comes the part I'm missing: wouldn't there be a statistical chance of whatever% that the BH absorbs either the "negative" or "positive" particles created by the virtual fluctuations
The pop-sci explanation would involve some handwaving about all real particles being of positive mass, so only these are detected. The real explanation is that virtual particles are not real particles and can't be treated like them.

>>9059531
you cant control when the particles pop out of the quantum foam and get split up before annihilating themselves again

>>9062403
What math background will i need to understand Hawking's paper? i'm willing to put on the effort.

>>9062383

if you can control when the wavefunction collapses, otherwise its just random

>>9062413
Well general relativity needs differential geometry, specifically (pseudo-)Riemannian geometry and then all the linear algebra, and functional analysis of quantum mechanics, plus gauge theory which is another part of differential geometry. It's more about the physics background you need - if you're familiar with general relativity and quantum field theory you'll do fine (assuming you've understood these at a high enough level), but IIRC you don't need so much actual quantum field theory, just classical field theory (gauge theory) and quantum mechanics, all on top of general relativity. You're better learning this through physics texts than maths ones, if only for the notation.

>>9062336
>>9062356
Particles aren't fields - particles are the excitations of quantum fields. To prove what I an saying about virtual particles not being physical objects, just mathematical tools, first note that the vacuum state of your theory must be Lorentz invariant. For the vacuum is defined as the unique lowest energy state of the theory. If virtual particles were actually popping in and out of existence in the vacuum, that vacuum wouldn't be constant over time and hence could not be Lorentz invariant.
>>9062376
Time stops at the event horizon from the reference frame of an observer infinitely far from the black hole. If someone drops a clock into a black hole and you are watching from a very long distance away, you will see that clock slow further and further as it approaches the event horizon, and you will never see the clock pass through the horizon. In fact, you'll see it get more and more red shifted as it spreads out over the horizon.

>>9062414
Can't you just interact with the particle to cause a wavefunction collapse?

Anyways, I'm thinking there must be some other reason why this wouldn't work, due to the no-communication theorem.

>>9061068
Is that why popsci futurologists claim humanity will escape death of he universe by batterying ourselves away into black holes and coming out when things have reset?

>>9062496
Do people actually believe this stuff? This is some space odyssey shit.

>>9058856
Why is speed finite?

>>9062433
Thanks.

>>9062497
Yeah Look up any kardashev scale article

>>9062463
Your partner wouldn't know your result, or even if you had interacted with the entanglement, and he can't measure his end of the entanglement without interacting with it. Thus there's no way to communicate anything.

>>9062383
Checking for the collapsed particle also collapses the waveform. So essentially you never know if the other side triggered it, or you did.

>>9062376
Read my inb4 dumb cunt
>>9062496
Perhaps, but blackoles aren't eternal. They die out
You'd need to find a big enough black hole to fuel throughout the lifetime of the universe

I'll admit, it's very confusing how something with such time dialation gets anything done. I'd imagine hawking radiation eats at the "surface" and works its way back

>>9062367
>go to Wikipedia
>click on references
>???
>profit

That's how I always cite my papers