Black Holes and The Internet

[mobodick]

Congratulations! you just re-invented the ether.

Yup, that's (and i'm not kidding) the forefront of current physics.
Of course it's a different kind of 'ether' then what people normally think of.

I'm sure it is

Here is a youtube video about the double slit experiment done with a needle instead of a double slit by the guy who inspired me to take part in this discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOwTV-HgDUo

Yeah well, this guy seems like a bunch of FUD.

He got it right with the particle explanation. You shouldn't see fringes if matter was a particle.
But he is completely wrong about wave behavior.
Waves are not cut off by an obstacle, they bend around it. All waves do that naturally. Water, sound, EM all bend around corners.
If his animation was true you could not hear direct sound around a corner. But you can.
All waves bend around corners and that is why his needle experiment shows fringes.
He apparently (and propably deliberately) misunderstands wave dynamics.
His only real example of 'no interference from needle' is the blue part at 6:33 and it shows interference except it's on the bottom side.
It also doesn't show an obstacle like a needle.

His gravitational lensing thing is also bunk.
There is not nearly enough mass in a needle to bend a photon in any meeningfull way.
If there was a gravitation-like or rope-like effect we would have found out about 100 years ago.

So he misrepresents the reality of wave dynamics and then uses some far out theory to explain how he is right...
Hmm.,., havent seen that one before., 
This guy is as pseudo as they come.
He does have his own book, tho!

[mobodick]

Congratulations! you just re-invented the ether.

Yup, that's (and i'm not kidding) the forefront of current physics.
Of course it's a different kind of 'ether' then what people normally think of.

I'm sure it is

Here is a youtube video about the double slit experiment done with a needle instead of a double slit by the guy who inspired me to take part in this discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOwTV-HgDUo

PS No particle physicist has considered the newtonian model of the atom for at least 50 years. But then this guy here pretends like physicists are retarded.
This is our current understanding of how an electron in orbit looks like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png

Not realy an orbiting ping-pong ball, right?

So whatever he proposes tries to solve problems that were solved by conventional physics decades ago.

[ElectricMucus]

I do not really concur with his own theories, and the attitude toward math, but I think Bill Gaede's critique about the current establishment is very solid.
He's a very entertaining fella too


The problem is that conceptual ideas are often represented to be actual reality which is plain wrong. That goes both for special relativity and quantum mechanics.
We haven't actually observed a black hole or an electron, but still those concepts are often said to be actual existing objects, which is wrong.
There is soo much pseudoscience attached to the whole black-hole, big-bang thing it's almost ridiculous. And this thread just caught my eye. I should have probably mentioned Tipler's Omega Point Theory in relation to OP's topic... Just look it up... talk about pseudo  

[mobodick]

I do not really concur with his own theories, and the attitude toward math, but I think Bill Gaede's critique about the current establishment is very solid.
He's a very entertaining fella too

Yeah, sure, critique is cool. Just not 60 year old critique,

The problem is that conceptual ideas are often represented to be actual reality which is plain wrong. That goes both for special relativity and quantum mechanics.
We haven't actually observed a black hole or an electron, but still those concepts are often said to be actual existing objects, which is wrong.
There is soo much pseudoscience attached to the whole black-hole, big-bang thing it's almost ridiculous. And this thread just caught my eye. I should have probably mentioned Tipler's Omega Point Theory in relation to OP's topic... Just look it up... talk about pseudo  

I agree that math is not reality per se.

Just don't forget that math can still predict something about reality because experiments show that our reality is governed by mathematical relations.

[fergalish]

You should read "George's secret key to the universe" by Hawking. It's a book written for children, but it does explore the possibility of reconstructing something that falls into a black hole.  The point being, the information is NOT lost or destroyed. Merely, let's say, randomized, or encrypted in a certain sense.

Yes, but the information will be perfectly decorrelated if i'm not mistaken.
You would have no idea what bit of information that came out belongs to what information that went in.
You have no chance of even beginning a reconstruction!

The point is not to reconstruct the object. The point is: the information is not destroyed. It is preserved, but completely randomized and mixed far beyond our, probably even theoretical, ability to decode. It gets lost in heat. I have to admit that I would follow Shannon's theories though - information IS entropy. So when the article you cite talks about information being erased, and so necessarily increasing entropy, I would argue that the information is preserved in the increased entropy. We simply can't decode it, though according to Hawking, it might be theoretically possible (if I understand Hawking correctly).

@fergalish, I am actually going of the article that I linked to above. The authors are claiming that information is destroyed and gravity appears as a result of a gradient between entropies in two different places. As far as all the posts go mobodick is closest to define how entropy and information are connected that relates.

I looked at the linked PDF from ArXiv, but it's beyond me. I don't understand why they say "information causes gravity" when one can simply say "mass-energy causes gravity, and encodes information". Their interpretation would somehow suggest that information endows (something) with mass. Two sides of the same coin maybe? All I can say is that I studied relativity and, at the time, I even understood it. So from that point of view Occam's razor rules, and I have to accept Einstein. But I'll keep an open mind. It would be interesting to see how this info-centric view of the universe relates to string theory.

[nebulus]

@fergalish, I do not know how the conversion process works. Maybe I am trying to descride it. I am going of a bunch of studies and looking to establish some sort of an idea exchange about the main 'what if' post which is 'black holes/internet(mind) are interrelated. Your feedback is appreciated a great deal...

Now, there is principle in the physics world called Landauer's erasure principle that states whenever a bit of information is erased energy is released. Well obviously if you think that general relavity is a solid theory you can agree that mass can be converted into energy. I am not sure if general relativity allows energy to convert to mass. For this argument let's say it does alike to situation with water and ice at 0 degrees. So if a black hole fullfills two functions one to erase information and two provides a setting for energy to become mass then I can see how information becomes gravity. This is probably the main reason I struggle to accept that information is preserved in a black hole. Maybe I am considering a different kind of a black hole something ala information sink. Once again I want to point you back to the article the heart of their idea is what happens to information when it enters a black hole.